Question

Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo’s product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​ __________.A. ​preemption.

B. ​inadequate warning.
C. ​comparative negligence.
D. ​product misuse.

Answer 1

C) ​comparative negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

In common law, comparative negligence is a legal defense used to try to share the blame of causing an accident or aggravating the injuries resulting from an accident.

In this case, the company cannot claim that it wasn't negligent by selling a defective beam, but it can claim that Flo's injuries were aggravated by the fact that she didn't use protective gear. So she should partially share the blame of her injuries.

The same happens when a speeding car hits a pedestrian who didn't look at the road before trying to cross the street. The car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian, but the pedestrian is also partially responsible for not looking at the street before trying to cross.

Answer 2

Answer: The correct answer is "C. Comparative negligence."

Explanation: In Flo’s product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​ comparative negligence.

The comparative negligence defense can be used successfully because although the company is guilty of the accident, Flo is somewhat guilty in the fact that I do not use any corresponding safety equipment.