Question

Bill was driving his car on the Beltway at rush hour. It was a cold evening and when it started to rain; the roads started to ice over. Bill figured he should go as fast as possible so as to limit the amount of time he would be on the road, thus, he reasoned, lessening his chance of getting into an accident. Suddenly, the car ahead of Biil starts to slow down very quicklly but since Bill is a good distance away, he figures he will be okay. After all, he is driving a late model, expensive car with all the latest safety equipment. Before Bill can even hit the brakes his car starts to slow down thanks to the collision avoidence system. But then the car hits a patch of ice and Ball suddenly 3ees why the man in front of him had been slowing down. Bill decides to take control, so he disables the colision avoidance system and starts pumping the brakes. Unfortunately for Bill, the car is equipped with ant-lock brakes as are all modern cars, and so his pumping of the brakes causes the car to go into an uncontrolled skid rather than slowing down. He rear-ends the car in front of him and suffers various injuries in the collision. After an exahuastive search of the owner's manual and all the literature he can find on the manufacturer's web site, Bill thinks he has an airtight case of failure to warn product liability. He will sue the manufacturer. What will be the result?

a. Bill will win. The judicial trend is towards greater liability so the court will find the car maker liable for 8 airs injuries since they made a car where the driver was allowed to take control and hurt himseif in the process.
b. Bill will lose. A company is not required to wam of obvious dangers and driving a car fast on lce and then disabling the safety features that could have kept the driver safe are obvious dangers.
c. This case is too close to call. Afrter all, car makers are required to wam of any and all potentiai dangers to a driver, which is probably why it is so hard to read the manual these days. But since there was ice, who knows?

Answer 1

Bill will likely lose the product liability lawsuit because manufacturers are not required to warn against obvious dangers, and disabling safety features and pumping anti-lock brakes known to prevent skidding would be seen as contributory negligence on his part.

Step-by-step explanation:

In response to the question regarding the likely outcome of Bill's product liability lawsuit, Bill will lose the case. Generally, a manufacturer is not required to warn of risks that are obvious or widely known. Driving at high speeds on icy roads is a known hazard and disabling safety features such as a collision avoidance system and an antilock braking system (ABS) only increase the risk of an accident.

Additionally, modern vehicles are equipped with ABS to prevent skidding and to maintain steering control during sudden braking; therefore, pumping the brakes, as Bill did, is contrary to the proper use of ABS. Considering these factors, the court would likely find that the car manufacturer is not liable for Bill's injuries.