A product is also "unreasonable dangerous" when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto contended that because its product was "simple" and the danger was "obvious," it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree

Question

Pamela Fischer

Business

19 February, 00:48

A product is also "unreasonable dangerous" when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto contended that because its product was "simple" and the danger was "obvious," it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Ireland Moran · Answer 1

I disagree

Explanation:

I disagree because Scripto has been advised that the manufacturer is insecure when it is used by the children because they have been aware of 25 previous cases.

To ignore the security requirements, Script made a conscious decision that was 40 cent, but less if they had added it to the initial design. Because technical design plans included a protective feature for children which would be a better choice for the welfare of the consumer, the court of appeal reversed the decision based on the criterion for risk-benefit. The risk value test would show that "excessive preventable danger" existed and that the use of the alternate conception with the child safety feature avoided this and offered greater certainty for all clients.