A company manufactures a smart thermostat. The user manual clearly states, "For professional installation only. Do not attempt to install on aluminum wiring." A homeowner, who is not an electrician, buys the thermostat and installs it himself on his home's aluminum wiring. The connection overheats, causing a fire that damages the home. The homeowner sues the manufacturer, alleging the thermostat was defective. Which of the following is the manufacturer's strongest defense?
Superseding cause
Comparative negligence
Assumption of risk
The product was not sold to a professional installer
The manufacturer's strongest defense is comparative negligence. The homeowner failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety by ignoring a clear warning and installing the device himself on a prohibited type of wiring, which constitutes misuse. In most jurisdictions, a plaintiff's own negligence that contributes to their injury can reduce or bar their recovery in a products liability case. While assumption of risk is a related defense where the plaintiff knowingly encounters a danger, comparative negligence more broadly covers the homeowner's failure to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. A superseding cause typically involves an unforeseeable, intervening event, which is less applicable here than the homeowner's own foreseeable misuse. The fact that the product was sold to a non-professional does not, by itself, absolve the manufacturer of liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'lack of control over the distributor's actions' mean in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the significance of 'direct control' in product liability cases?