Wilma locked herself in the trunk of a 1973 sedan in an attempt to learn a magic trick. After some time, she decided to get out of the trunk, but was unable to do so. She was released nine days later. She subsequently sued the manufacturer of the sedan for the psychological and physical injuries she sustained because the trunk did not have an internal release or opening mechanism that would have allowed her to escape. She alleged that the manufacturer was negligent in its design of the car because it lacked such a mechanism, and negligent because it failed to warn users that the trunk did not have such a mechanism. In this scenario, was the manufacturer of the sedan negligent for failing to warn, or failing to include a release mechanism in its design of the car?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

No, the manufacturer of the sedan was not negligent for failing to warn, or failing to include a release in its design of the car. Most states that have adopted strict liability do not allow the injured party to recover if the injuries resulted from the misuse of the product. This means that if the plaintiff used the product in a manner that was not intended or foreseeable, he or she may not recover. In this scenario, Wilma would probably not be able to recover.