4 Comments

  • Time to bring back the open and obvious doctrine. If someone with a brain the size of a pea can understand the hazard, there should be no duty to warn. “When you drive, watch the road” and “Snow and ice are slippery” would seem to fall into the ambit of that idea. However, the Restatement of Torts (3d Ed.) rejects that idea in favor of whether it is foreseeable that someone, somewhere, sometime will act like Jackass, The Movie, Part Deux, there is a duty to warn explicitedly as to all hazards, imaginationable or not. So, the suit may have merit, and Dental Floss will come with a 20 page warnings and instructions manual.

    • In Texas, there is no duty to warn of open and obvious or known dangers (at least not in the products liability context). The more dangerous claim here is the design defect/safer alternative design one, I think. I’m skeptical of liability there too; but it would be harder claim to defend against.

  • I for one look forward to suing any and all fast ‘food’ purveyors with drive thru’s. After all, shoving down a burger and fries is probably as distracting as a phone. Doubly so if I happen to spill that too hot coffee 😉 in my own lap.

  • @Crum Ex Clerk:
    The accident may have been in Texas, but the suit was filed in Santa Clara Cty, California.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>