There are three theories of liability when it comes to situations like
this. The first is negligence, which requires four elements of it to be
proven and treated as such. The second is strict product liability and
lastly there is breach of warranty. This case had nothing to do with
breach of warranty, but negligence and strict product liability can
both be proven as theories of liability. Negligence was not directly
noted from Justice Posner, but the strict product liability theory was.
He mentioned that the defendants are responsible even if the defect
was introduced through no fault of their own, but solely due to not
discovering it. This makes both the manufacturer and K-Mart
responsible. The judge decided to rule against the defendants
because the plaintiffs are not required to exclude every other
possibility. They used the doctrine of res ipsa loquitier which teaches
that an accident that is unlikely to occur, unless the defendant is
negligent, is itself circumstantial evidence that the defendant is guilty
of negligence(Kubasek et al., 2021). To put it simply, an accident
itself can be evidence of negligence. I do agree with the decision in a
legal sense. It does make sense when referring to the theories of
liability for negligence and strict product liability. It is hard to believe
that there was no other trauma to the jar prior to this but in a legal
sense none of that matters.
References
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., &
Barkacs, L. L. (2021). In Dynamic Business Law: The essentials. essay,
McGraw-Hill Education.
