Question

D1 drove out of a parking lot after shopping. as she turned onto a busy street, she hit another car. d1 lost control of her car as her foot slipped from the brake to the gas pedal. d1’s car bounced off the first car, drove erratically down the road, up onto a sidewalk, and hit an electric pole. the pole broke and landed on p, a teenager walking down the sidewalk, causing serious injuries. p sued both d1 and d2 (the company that made the electric pole). p sued d2 under the idea that the manufacturer is required to "anticipate the environment on which its product will be used, and it must design against the reasonably foreseeable risk attending the use in that setting." what is d2’s standard of care? did d2 breach that standard?

Answer 1

The manufacturer of the electric pole (D2) is required to anticipate the environment in which their product will be used and design against foreseeable risks.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this situation, the manufacturer of the electric pole (D2) is being sued under the idea that they are required to anticipate the environment in which their product will be used and designed against foreseeable risks. The standard of care for D2 would be to design the electric pole in a way that minimizes the risk of it causing serious injuries when it falls. If D2 did not meet this standard of care, then they may be held liable for the injuries caused to P.

The standard of care for D2 is to design the electric pole in a way that minimizes the risk of causing serious injuries when it falls. Whether D2 breached the standard of care depends on the foreseeability of the accident. However, it is important to note that D2's liability would depend on whether it was foreseeable for the electric pole to be hit by a car in the first place. If it was not reasonably foreseeable for this specific accident to occur, then D2 may not be considered to have breached the standard of care.