Strict Product Liability: Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp. Case Paper Example

Question 1

Calle's expectations apply in this particular situation, considering that she is the one who purchased the lighter with the assumption that it was a child-resistant safety device. This is because according to the law, the manufacturer of any product has legal responsibilities to ensure that their products are safe for use by the consumer, at all costs (FindLaw, 2018). In this case, the seller assures the safety of the lighter to Calle, regarding it as reasonable, with very minimal chances for kids to cause harm using the device. Even though the company did not manufacture the product specifically for children, the law requires additional child safety feature involving such products.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Additionally, there is also the need to consider and include safety features for adults, especially the ones suffering from mental disorder. The court disagreed with the plaintiff's aspect, suggesting that the consumer expectation test be viewed from child's point of view (FindLaw, 2018). Evidently, the company manufactured the device for use by the adults, thereby backing up the court's disagreement with the plaintiff. As a safety product in line with the law, Scripto should have featured all the security concerns to the product before presenting the same to the market.

Question 2

I disagree with the suggestion that Scripto should be liable under this test. As a major concern, the company was given early notices regarding the safety of the product. This means that Scripto was well knowledgeable about the condition of the devices, but decided to ignore the need to enhance the measures. Among the main reasons towards this reluctance was due to the cost of adding the feature, which clearly, the company did not want to incur. As such, it is evident that Scripto was guilty of negligence since it entirely ignored all the existing evidence related to the safety of their device, most importantly the absence of the child safety feature (FindLaw, 2018). Even though the company argued that every consumer is supposed to be aware of possible fire dangers with such products, manufacturers are still bear the responsibility of ensuring product safety to its customers in the market. Considering that there were plans to offer safety features to the devices, the consumers would have had better reasons to purchase the products, along with guaranteed safety from the devices.

Question 3

Given the factors identified as well as information from both sides of the case, it would only be fair for the court to rule against the company, thereby favoring Susan Calle. The law provides that every product manufacturer has a delegable duty towards designing and manufacturing end products that are reasonably safe to the consumers in the market (FindLaw, 2018). Scripto had explicit knowledge of the preventable danger to the consumers from using the product, but instead, the company chose to offer the devices to the market, ignoring the threat. Moreover, the company went ahead to sell the products with its unsafe condition, while there was an alternative that could be actualized to enhance the safety of the devices. As such, it did not matter whether Susan lacked judgment or negligence in the case, thereby indicating that the entire case is the company's fault.

Work Cited

FindLaw. Findlaw's Supreme Court Of Illinois Case And Opinions. "Calles-v-Scripto Tokai Corporation" 2018, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-supreme-court/1394225.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.