Week 2 Discussion Post 19 Document

Thejudgeutilizedthedoctrineofresipsaloquitureoranaccident

thatisunlikelytooccurunlessthedefendantwasnegligent.He

basedthisonKmartsellingadefectivejarofpeanutstoKaren

GodfreyeventhoughKmartdidn'tdoanythingtodamagethejar.I

believethatKmartshouldn'thavebeenliableforthatJarofpeanuts

sincetheydidnotmanufactureitandtheypurchaseditfroma

reputableseller.Idon'tbelievetheyknewthejarswheredefective

andnoevidencewaswasproduceddisclosingthattheyhadprevious

knowledgeofthejarsbeingdefective.Furthermoretheyshouldhave

beenprotectedbythesellersexceptionstatutelikeinBlockvs

Toyotamotorcorporation.InthatcaseAngelaBlocksueda

dealershipforsellinghersonavehicletheacceleratedonitown

causinghersontogetkilled.Thatcasewasdismissedbecausea

sellersexceptionstatesthatastrictliabilitycasebedismissedbya

nonmanufacturerunlesstheymeetoneoftheexceptions.Inthis

caseKmarthadnoknowledgeofthethejarbeingdefectivenordid

theycauseit.