TORTS

QUESTION TWO

Professor Soukup & Kreeft

Torts Final Exam Spring 2012

As a law student, PATSY often purchased SNAPPLE beverages at the school's vending machine duringbreaks in class. PATSY enjoyed drinking SNAPPLE fruit juices because of their natural ingredients. Shealso preferred SNAPPLE because they were not carbonated, which caused her stomach irritation.

During the break at her Tuesday night class, PATSY purchased a SNAPPLE Kiwi Strawberry. She didnot finish the drink, so she carefully tightened the top and put it in her backpack.

Two days later, when PATSY went to retrieve her study materials from her backpack, she noticed theSNAPPLE. She looked at the contents ofthe drink, which appeared fine and the bottle was cool to thetouch. However, when PATSY opened the bottle, the top forcefully blew off due to fermentation of thejuice over several days. The exploding top hit PATSY in her right eye. PATSY required specialized eyesurgery to correct her vision in that eye.

SNAPPLE's bottle label read as follows:

mICE DRINKALL NATURALSNAPPLENaturally FermentedKIWI STRAWBERRYMade from the best stuff on Earth

Please discuss all causes of action that PATSY may bring against SNAPPLE and discuss anydefenses SNAPPLE may assert.

3

..I.~rr _

EXAM PRESENTATION (TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE;;; 10)

NEATNESS/ORGANIZATION o 1 2

Poor Excellent

LAWYER -LIKE o

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES (TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE;;; 90)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY:INCLUDING DEFINITION, DEFECT, CUSTOMER EXPECTATION TEST,RISK UTILITY AND FEASIBLE ALTERNA TIVE TEST

30 POINTS = FULL DISCUSSION

15 POINTS = PARTIAL DISCUSSION

NEGLIGENCE

'70 tIJ POINTS = FULL DISCUSSION

10 POINTS = PARTIAL DISCUSSION

.

--; ,,-.o'--~;;-- --

WARRANTIES:INCLUDING EXPRESS AND IMPLED(MERCHANTABILITY & FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE

15 POINTS = FULL DISCUSSION

7.5 POINTS = PARTIAL DISCUSSION

MISREPRESENTATIONfBATTERY

5 POINTS = FULL DISCUSSION

2.5 POINTS = PARTIAL DISCUSSION

DEFENSES TO ALL AREAS ABOVE

10 POINTS = FULL DISCUSSION

5 POINTS = PARTIAL DISCUSSION

TOTAL SCORE: _1

I[ (Torts - Spr2012)

2)

======== Start of Answer #2 (1145 words) ========152191

Patsy (CP) V. Snapple (S)

Products Liability

There are several theories of Products Libility (PL). They are strict products liability (SPL),

warranties (express and implied), Negligence (D-B-C-D) and intentional torts.

SPL.

SPL means that a manufacturer/distributor/retailer must insure that products placed into the fstream of commerce are done so without defect or are reasonably safe for the ordinary I'..

consumer. To prove SPL the Plaintiff must show that the manufacture and a duty, that they

breached, and that it caused the plaintiff's damages. Here P may attempt to show that S was

stricly liable for the Snapple drink that harmed her.

Duty/Standard of Care (SaC)

A manufacture has a duty to ensure their products must be safe for all foreseeable users. Here

P was a foreseeable user of S's drinks. How~y.~r._tbe-.sOC.be§iAS~witl:r.tAe.-rn.anUfacter...s-and.._.J\eIl2~wit!:L1b.5;t,.gQ.nsj.Jrnect.E~bought her Snapple drink from a vending machine but kept it for )

two days in a backpack therefore the product did go from the manufacturer to the consumer but

then there was a two day brea~JI ./

Breach

There are three types of breaches, Manufacture defect one wherein the product emerged

different then designed, design~defect wherein the product was not safe for consumers and

that the risk outwieghs the utlitity and inadequate warnings wherein there was not a warning

that reduced the risk or harm of the use of the product. Here P may assert two of the theories

of breach, design defect and inadequate warnings.

With design defect the product must be safe for ordinary use, and there is a risk/utility aspect

as well as a feasbile component. Here P may argue the drink was not safe because the drink

Page 1 of 4

(Question 2 continued)

(Torts - Spr2012) o

was not safe for ordinary consumption as it blew open and and injured her eye. It may be

possible that the risk of fermintation may outweigh the utlilty of the natural drink although that

argument will likely fail becasue P had not refridgergated the drink for two days. P's strongest /'

arguement against S will be adequate warnings. The label read as follows: "juice drink, all

natural, snapple, naturally fermented, kiwi strawberry and made from the best stuff on earth."

Nowhere was there a warning about refridgeration and the subsquent danger related to

fermenattion which led to the lid blowing off and striking P in the eye. 1i~

Cause

there is the actual "but for" cause as well as the proximate cause wherein if a manufacture has

a defective duty it will be the proximate cause. But for the lid blowing off and striking P's eye,

she would not have been injured. S's breach of adequate warnings, failing to advise of the

dangers, led to the proximate cause of P's injuries.

Damages

P's right eye was injured that required specialized surgery to correct her vision. P will be

entitled to compenation for her physical injuries.

Defenses

Assupmtion of the risk, a voluntary act when the risks are known. S will argue that P should

have known that not refridgerating the drink would lead to a risk therefore she assumed said

risk.

Comtributiry fault used to bar the recovery when the plaintiff was determined to have some

fault, however slight.

Comparative fault weighs the fault of both parties wherein they both conducted themselves in 1fault. The finder of fact will determine the damages. here S will assert that P was negligent in fkeeping a fermenting jiuce in her backpack for days and then opening it near her face. They Iwill attempt to interject that P is at least partially to blame for her damages, if not totally.

Unforeseen misues of the product, S will assert this defense as they cannot be responsible or

foresee all uses of their drinks. This argu~ment will likely fail as an adequate warning on the

label about refridgeration would have eliminated all possibility of the misuse by P 1I

Page 2 of 4

(Question 2 continued)

(Torts - Spr2012) o

Warranties

There are both express and implied warranties

express warranties are the stated words that are the benefit to the bargain that the consumer Irelies on. This theory of recovery may not apply. IImplied warranties are both merchanctibility wherein the priduct must be safe for consumers \

and fitness for a parcticular use wherein the vendor has the experstise knowing the buyer must \ t1i ;:/

rely. This theory may be applicable in that the juice should have been safe for consumers, !1

merchantability. P would have expected the juice would be safe to drink at anytime therefore 1leading one to believe the waranty was implied. I

S will assert the same defenses as above as P will claim the same damages.

Negligence

Negligence is conduct that falls below that of a reasonable priduent person (RPP) in similar

circumstances. S's conduct as a manufactorer of drinks will be examined and whether or not

their conduct was nefligent, by not warning P of the fermentation dangers of their product.

Duty/Standard of Care (SaC)

A defendant has a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs. P is a foreseeable plaintiff and consumer

while S has a duty of care to her.

Special relationships may be applicable in some situatuions they are; Unknown trespasser,

KNown Trespassers, Attractive Nuesance, Invitees and Licensess. In this case there

relationships do not apply.

Breach

If the sac fall below that which is required to limit llabillty.,

Res Ipsa Loquitir, which is latin for things speak for themselves. Here the blowing off top

exploded and hit P in the eye, this negligence speaks for itself as the top hit the eye.

The Hand Formula is used to determine if the risk outwieghs the use, and if so then a breach

may be inferred. Here this theory may not apply as the use, drinking juice is not typically

dangerous.

Page 3 of 4

(Question 2 continued)

10: (Torts - Spr2012) o

Cause, see supra (SPL) and in this case S will assert that P was a interveneing factor. it's

possoble the drink was not negligently made and taht if stored properly would not have

exploded. P may have intervened by placing the juice in her backpack which was the proximate

cause to her injuries.

Damages, see supra (SPL)

Defenses

Assupmtion of the risk, S will assert that P assumed the risk when she stored her drink in a

non-approved fashion, within her backpack. This arguement will likely fail as there was no way

without a warning that P could have no that to assume the risk.

Comtributiry fault, see supra (SPL)

Comparative fault, see supra (SPL)

Intentional Torts

Battery

The intentional harmful or offensive touching of another. Here P will argue that she prayed

victim to the intentional tort battery when the juice top made contact with her eye.

Defenses

Consent, here S will argue that P consented to the contact in that it was she who opened the

bottle near her face. This arguement will likely fail as P could not have known she was to be

smacked in the face when she opened her Snapple.

======== End of Answer #2 ========

Page 4 of 4