1. Products liability typically arises under state law. Why is this case being heard in federal…

1. Products liability typically arises under state law. Why is this case being heard in federal court? What law does the court apply—federal or state?
2. The court determines that the defendant is not liable in negligence because there is no proximate causation between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s breach. Explain.
3. The court also determines that the defendant is not strictly liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Why?
4. What two types of strict liability claims does the plaintiff allege?
5. If the use of a fertilizer as an explosive device is widely published on the Internet, do you think that such a use would then be reasonably foreseeable? If a manufacturer’s product is used by a third party in a way that was unforeseen and someone is injured as a result, do you think that the manufacturer loses the defense that the use was unforeseeable in future lawsuits involving similar conduct by other third parties?

Individuals injured by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (“Murrah Building”) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, filed suit against the manufacturers of the ammonium nitrate allegedly used to create the bomb. * * * The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your accounting classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Active Discount Code FREE15