1 / 5

Laaperi v. Sears Roebuck

candice
Download Presentation

Laaperi v. Sears Roebuck

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck The duty of manufactures to warn consumers of the dangers of their products.

    2. Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck

    3. Laaperi v. Sears & Roebuck

    4. 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.

    5. 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 .

    6. 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.

More Related