Question

Assume that instead of cleaning a drain with the drain cleaner, Zhao had attempted to use the cleaner to remove a stubborn stain from his hands, causing extreme burns and loss of feeling in his fingers. Zhao sues the manufacturer for inadequate warnings, alleging that the product should have clearly stated that it was not for use on skin. 1. To determine if the company is liable for inadequate warning, a court will have to determine if Zhao’s using the cleaner on his hands was a of the product. 2. It foreseeable that a person would use something labeled "cleaner" to remove a stain on a hand. 3. A court also would have to determine that a warning reduce or eliminate the risk associated with the harm in this situation. 4. A warning stating "not for use on bare skin" or "only use with protective gloves" eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. 5. The manufacturer be liable to Zhao for injuries to his hand.

Answer 1

1. Foreseeable Misuse

2. Is

3. Would

4. Would

5. Would

Step-by-step explanation:

1. Under the Foreseeable Misuse factor, a manufacturer could still be held liable for a mishap caused by the consumer not using the product as intended because it is believed that the Manufacturer should have anticipated that Misuse as well as it's damage.

2. "Is" is the correct word to complete the sentence.

3. "Would" is the correct word to complete the sentence.

4. "Would" is the correct word to complete the sentence.

5. "Would" is the correct word to complete the sentence.