Question

Jason Clark, an experienced hunter, bought a paintball gun. Clark practiced with the gun and knew how to screw in the carbon dioxide cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. Although Clark was aware that he could purchase protective eyewear, he chose not to buy it. Clark had taken gun safety courses and understood that it was "common sense" not to shoot anyone in the face. Clark’s friend, Chris Wright, also owned a paintball gun and was similarly familiar with the gun’s use and its risks. Clark, Wright, and their friends played a game that involved shooting paintballs at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Clark and Wright were cruising with their guns, Wright shot at Clark’s car, but hit Clark in the eye. Clark filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of Wright’s paintball gun to recover for the injury. Clark claimed that the gun was defectively designed. During the trial, Wright testified that his gun "never malfunctioned." In whose favor should the court rule? Why?

Answer 1

The court should rule in favour of the manufacturer of Wright's gun.

Step-by-step explanation:

Product liability states that the manufacturer of a product is liable for any damages caused when a defective product is placed in the hands of a consumer.

The consumer will have to prove the product was defective for this liability to be enforceable.

However Wright testified that his gun had never malfunctioned, so the claim against the gun manufacturer cannot be justified as a product liability because the gun was not defective.

If for example a person buys a hammer and while using it the head flies off and injured another person the manufacturer can now be liable because the head of the hammer going off is a defect that caused harm.