I believe the theory used was product liability where courts can hold
the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer liable for any reasonably
foreseeable injured party. The includes the buyer, buyer’s family,
guests, friends, and bystanders. Also, the court focuses on whether
the product was in a “defective condition” when sold. Lastly, the
plaintiff must prove three things:
1. The product was defective when sold.
2. The produce was so defective that it was unreasonably dangerous.
3. The product was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
Justice Posner believed that all three were met in regards to the
injury to the plaintiff’s hand. Like how it was argued that it was
tampered with in the kitchen while the plaintiff was sleeping but that
wasn’t the case and that it just so happened to be a defective item
when purchased.
Overall, I agree with the judgment because handling a jar wouldn’t
result in this kind of extreme (at least I’ve never encountered that). It
wasn’t damaged from being handled in the store, on the way home,
or when it was explained how the product was used.
Kubasek, K., N., Browne, M, N. Dhooge, J., L., Herron, J., D., Barkacs,
L., L. (2017). Dynamic Business Law fourth edition. McGraw-Hill.
New York, New York.
