Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Laaperi v. Sears _ Roebuck

VIEWS: 43 PAGES: 6

									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.

								
To top