Question

Plaintiff John bought a hammer manufactured by V B. After buying the hammer, John took it home. While using the hammer to nail into a 2x4, a piece broke off and caused a metal chip to fly into his eye. John subsequently lost the eye and sued V B. It was proven that the hammer contained a hidden defect. If before the accident, John had seen metal chips flying off the hammer but continued to use it, would this sustain the defense of assumption of risk which is an affirmative defense?

Answer 1

In this scenario, the defense of assumption of risk may not sustain due to the hidden defect of the hammer. The manufacturer can still be held liable for the injuries caused by the defective product.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this case, the defense of assumption of risk may not sustain. Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense used by defendants to argue that the plaintiff knew and understood the risks involved in using a product, but still chose to use it. However, in the given scenario, even though John continued to use the hammer after seeing metal chips flying off it, it was later proven that the hammer had a hidden defect. This means that John may not have been aware of the actual risks associated with using the hammer, as the defect was not visible.

Therefore, it can be argued that John did not fully assume the risk of using the hammer because he was not aware of the hidden defect. The manufacturer, V B, may still be held liable for the injuries caused by the defective hammer.

This is supported by the counter example situation provided, where a manufacturer is held liable for injuries and deaths due to known defects, even if the consumers were aware of the risks associated with the product.