The theory that Justice Posner used to find the defendant liable was strict
product liability and the doctrine ofres ipsa loquitar. The doctrine of res ipsa
loquitar states, "that an accident that is unlikely to occur, unless the defendant
was negligent, is itself circumstantial evidence that the defendant was
negligent". The strict liability law also states that a seller is liable for defects
in their product even if those defects were introduced, without the slightest
fault of their own. There where two main reasons the judge determined to
reverse the decision of the lower court. The first condition proves that this
kind of accident would not have happened if not for a defect in the product
before it was sold. The second condition covers the motion for summary
judgement. Justice Posner believed that a normal person would not feel the
need to lock up their jar of peanuts to prevent a dangerous defect in the
product. I agree with the courts decision to hold the seller liable for the
defective product. The accident was clearly not due to the mishandling of the
product and there was a high probability of a defect that was introduced
during the manufacturing of the jar.
References
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019).Dynamic Business Law(5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
