VIEWS: 43 PAGES: 6 POSTED ON: 11/6/2011
Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck The duty of manufactures to warn consumers of the dangers of their products. Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck What warning should the defendants have given the plaintiffs under the facts of this case? That the smoke detector could be disabled by a fire in the electrical system of the house. Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck Would the outcome of this case has been different if the plaintiff was a licensed electrician? Explain. The defendants would have been negligent regardless . The plaintiffs electrical expertise would have an influence on the jury’s decision regarding proximate cause . Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck Why didn’t the plaintiff base the claim on strict liability ? Because strict liability requires a defective product . There was no evidence here that the smoke detector was defective . The issue was did the manufacturer have a responsibility to warn consumers about the problem with electrical circuit fires.
Pages to are hidden for
"Laaperi v. Sears _ Roebuck"Please download to view full document