johndiu

Seeking Model Answers for July 2007 California Bar Exam - Torts

Manufacturer designed and manufactured a “Cold Drink Blender,” which it sold through retail stores throughout the country. The Cold Drink Blender consists of three components: a base that houses the motor, a glass container for liquids with mixing blades inside on the bottom, and a removable cover for the container to prevent liquids from overflowing during mixing. A manufacturer’s brochure that came with the Cold Drink Blender states that it is “perfect for making all of your favorite cold drinks, like mixed fruit drinks and milk shakes, and it even crushes ice to make frozen drinks like daiquiris and piña coladas,” and cautioned, “Do not fill beyond 2 inches of the top.” Retailer sold one of the Cold Drink Blenders to Consumer. One day, Consumer was following a recipe for vegetable soup that called for thickening the soup by liquefying the vegetables. After deciding to use her Cold Drink Blender for this purpose, Consumer filled the glass container to the top with hot soup, placed it on the base, put the cover on top, and turned the blender on the highest speed. The high speed rotation of the mixing blades forced the contents to the top of the container, pushed off the cover, and splashed hot soup all over Consumer, who was severely burned by the hot soup.
Consumer filed a lawsuit against Manufacturer and Retailer, pleading claims for strict products liability and negligence. In her complaint, Consumer stated that the Cold Drink Blender was not equipped with a cover that locked onto the top of the container in such a way as to prevent it from coming off during operation and that the failure to equip the blender with this safety feature was a cause of her injuries. Manufacturer moved to dismiss the complaint against it on the following grounds:

(1) Consumer’s injury was caused by her own misuse of the Cold
Drink Blender which, as implied by its name, was intended for mixing only cold substances.

(2) Consumer’s injury was caused by her own lack of care, as she overfilled the Cold Drink Blender and operated it at high speed.

(3) The design of the Cold Drink Blender was not defective since It complied with design standards set forth in federal regulations promulgated by the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission, which do not require any locking mechanism. Retailer moved to dismiss the complaint against it on the following ground:

(4) Retailer played no part in the manufacture of the Cold Drink
Blender and therefore should not be held responsible for a defect in its design.

How should the court rule on each ground of both motions to dismiss? Discuss Category: CA - California Bar Exam