Martha is walking from her office building to her car in a torrential downpour with an umbrella manufactured by Umbrellas USA, Inc. She is struck by lightning and files suit, claiming the manufacturer failed to include a warning. A court would likely find that:

a. there is no duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known, such as the risk of lightning occurring during a rainstorm.

b. the plaintiff was partially at fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.

c. the seller should have provided a warning because of the foreseeable misuse of an umbrella in a rainstorm with lightning.

d. the umbrella should have included a warning label against using an umbrella in a lightning storm.

Question

Konnor Foster

Business

20 January, 08:42

Martha is walking from her office building to her car in a torrential downpour with an umbrella manufactured by Umbrellas USA, Inc. She is struck by lightning and files suit, claiming the manufacturer failed to include a warning. A court would likely find that:

a. there is no duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known, such as the risk of lightning occurring during a rainstorm.

b. the plaintiff was partially at fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.

c. the seller should have provided a warning because of the foreseeable misuse of an umbrella in a rainstorm with lightning.

d. the umbrella should have included a warning label against using an umbrella in a lightning storm.

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Phoenix Lara · Answer 1

Option "A" is the correct answer to the following statement.

Explanation:

Under the justification, There is no obligation to inform of obvious or generally known hazards, including the risk of lightning, wildfire, flood And heavy thunderstorm during rain.

In the case of Martha, she got hit by lightning and suit a case on Umbrella USA. inc., so it is negligible

So Martha will get nothing as compensation.