Post 1

Case: Paul Sipe v. Workhorse Custom Chassis

Parties: Plaintiff - Paul Sipe; Defendants Fleetwood Motor Homes and Workhorse Custom
Chassis.
Facts: Paul Sipe purchased a motor home in Sept 2004 that was manufactured by Fleetwood
Motor Homes in Pennsylvania. Workhorse manufactured the chassis of the motor home that
included the supporting frame, engine, transmission and certain electrical component. Sipe
started experiencing problems with the engine shortly after he bought it. The engine stalled on
three separate occasions Oct2004, May 2005 and June 2005. In Jan 2007 and Dec 2007 Sipe
experienced problems with the moto homes transmission. Sipe took it to Brambillas for repairs
each time. Diagnostic tests done after the first stalling should no defect in the engine and no
repairs were made. No repairs were made during the second and third visit to Brambillas as
well as the diagnostic tests found no defects. Sipe took Workhorse and Fleetwood to the
District Court alleging violation of Minnesotas lemon law which states that the manufactured
must make the required repairs if the consumer reports nonconformity to the manufacturer
during the term of the applicable warranties or during the period of two years following the
date of original deliver of the new motor vehicle whichever is the earlier.
Procedure: The District court dismissed Sipes claim
Issue: Should Sipe be reimbursed by Fleetwood and Workhorse under Minnesotas Lemon law.
Holding: Sipes Lemon law claims do not apply since he did not present any evidence to prove
that there was a defect in the engine that required repair or the defect impaired the motor
home.
Reasoning: The engine defect did not prevent Sipe from using his motor home or going
anywhere. Sipes own testimony showed that the engine defect did not impair his use of the
motor home. With respect to the effect of the engine on the market value of the home, he
couldnt provide evidence to suggest that this issue affected the value of his home. There was
also no evidence to show that the potential buyers were even aware of this issue. Regarding
the claim on Transmission fluid leak, Sipe brought the home in Oct 2004 and the leaks
happened in 2007. To bring an actionable lemon law claim Sipe should have reported this
within two years of buying the home.
1. a. According to Minnesotas lemon law, what was Sipe required to show in order to
win his engine defect claim?
Sipe should have shown evidence that there was a defect in the engine and that it
stalled and substantially impaired his use of his motor home and also reduced the
market value of his home.
b. Why did Sipe lose his engine defect claim?
Sipe lost his engine defect claim because he traveled over 11000 miles in his motor
home since the first time the engine stalled and it no way impaired his use of the motor
 home. Also Sipe could not show that potential buyers were aware of this defect and
could not prove that the value of the motor home was impaired.
2. Why did Sipe lose his defective transmission claim?
Regarding the claim on Transmission fluid leak, Sipe brought the home in Oct 2004 and
the leaks happened in 2007. To bring an actionable lemon law claim Sipe should have
reported this within two years of buying the home. Hence Sipes lemon law claim with
respect to the transmission leaks is barred by statute.

3. Dieter and Hermes.

a. Make the argument that lemon law does not apply to the facts in this case
Lemon law applies only to original parts and repairs made by the manufacturer and
not applicable to after-market accessories. Lemon law does not apply to Dealer-
installed options and after-market parts and accessories. Also Dieter and Hermes
were aware of the defects before the delivery of the vehicle and still accepted the
vehicle and hence lemon law does not apply.
b. Decide the case. Explain
The court should favor Chrysler because the parts were not authorized by them and
Dieter and Hermes chose to have the parts installed by the dealer. Dieter and
Hermes knew about the scratches when they accepted the delivery. Issues may be
present at delivery that a buyer might be aware of, but in this case the buyers new
about the scratches and still took possession of the vehicle. The Lemon law only
covers those defects that the consumer becomes aware of after delivery. In this case
they had a chance to back out of the sale due to the issues, but did not. If they
accepted the truck upon the dealers promise to repair the scratches then they
should ask for remedy from the dealer and not Chrysler.

POST 2
Case: Katko v. Briney
Parties: Plaintiff Marvin E. Katko; Defendant Edward and Bertha Briney
Facts: The Brineys unoccupied farmhouse has been the subject of many break-ins. The
property has been considerably damaged with windows boarded and trespass warning signs
posted. The defendants set a shot gun trap to fire if anyone enters the bedroom. Katko filed
action against the Brineys for damages resulting from serious leg injury caused by the shot
from a spring shotgun.
Procedure: Court ruled the defendant to pay $30000 to Katko.
Issue: Did the defendants way to protect their property from trespassers unlawful?
Holding: The use of shotguns to protect the property is unlawful
Reasoning: An individual can use a certain degree of force to protect oneself but when
individuals are not in immediate danger they cannot directly or indirectly use a device to cause
substantial bodily injury to others.

Do you agree with the decision? Why?

Yes I agree with the decision because there are other ways of protecting the home. For instance
the Brineys could have hired a security guard who could have deterred trespassers. The force
used by the defendants was unnecessary. Also only when an individual or his family is in
immediate danger can that individual use a certain degree of force for the sake of protection.
When no lives are in immediate danger such unnecessary force is not needed and is punishable.

POST 3:
Case: Calles v. Scripto-Tokai
Parties: Plaintiff Susan Calles; Defendants Scripto-Tokai
Facts: On March 31, 1998, Susan Calles took one of her four daughters Victoria to a video store
to rent a movie. Here three remaining daughters Amanda age 11 and twins Jenna and Jillian age
3 were home. The twins were in bed and Amanda was watching TV. When Susan returned
home she found fire trucks and emergency vehicles around her home. The investigators
determined that Jenna had accidentally started fire while playing with an Aim N Flame utility
lighter that was designed, manufactured and distributed by Scripto-Tokai. Calles filed suit that
Aim N Flame was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it did not contain a
child-resistant safety device.
Procedure: Trial court granted judgement in favor of Scripto. On appeal, the appellate court
confirmed in part(as to the judgement related to failure to warn) and reversed in part( that the
plaintiffs could proceed on the grounds of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty)
and remanded the case back to the trial court. Scripto appealed that decision to the Illinois
Supreme Court that ruled that the plaintiffs had sufficient evidence for the jury to determine
that the lighter posted dangers that overshadowed the advantages (Risk-utility test). The
Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff may proceed to take to court under strict liability and negligent-
product-design claims.
Holding: When the dangers of a product are open and obvious, and the mechanism used in
operating the product is simple, the risk-utility test should not be used.
Reasoning: An ordinary consumer would expect the Aim N Flame lighter to produce a flame
when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. In this case the child used it and leads to the
conclusion that the ordinary consumers expectations were fulfilled. The Supreme Court
declined to impose a simple-product exception as it was proved that a reasonable and
foreseeable alternative design to make the product safer was available and the manufacturer
declined to incorporate it.
1. a. Explain the plaintiff Calles claim that the Aim N flame lighter was defective and
unreasonably dangerous.
 Calles claimed that the lighter was defective and unreasonable dangerous because it did
not contain a child-resistance safety device. They claimed that Scripto possessed the
technology to make a lighter with child lock protection at least 4 years prior.
b. Explain the Courts resolution of Calles claim.
The Court favored Scripto because Calles failed to prove that the Aim N Flame lighter
was unreasonable dangerous.
2. What evidence must a plaintiff provide to maintain a successful defective design
product liability claim?
The plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, the defect existed at the time
the product left the manufacturer and the defect was the main cause of the plaintiffs
injury. The plaintiff must also prove that the manufacturer did not provide adequate
warning of known or reasonably foreseeable dangers arising from the use of that
product.
3. Is the manufacturer excused from liability if the products danger is obvious or if the
product is used in an unintended but foreseeable fashion?
A manufacturer is excused from liability if the plaintiff substantially altered the product
after it left the manufacturers control and this alteration caused the injury. In other
words the manufacturer can be excused if the plaintiff misused the product in an
unforeseeable way that led to the injuries. The manufacturer can be excused only if the
products danger is explicitly stated.
4. a. Is the foreseeable risk unreasonable, in your judgement?
No it is not unreasonable.
b. How did you reach the conclusion?
In this case BIC knew the frequency with which children used the lighters to set fires
while playing and cause harm to themselves and other people. Hence they could
possible foresee that children who had access to the lighters would certainly misuse
them. Thought the social utility of selling the lighters without child safety
mechanism would be minimal, the consequence of not having one could be deadly.
c. In your view, are parents the responsible parties in these episodes. Explain.
Yes parents are the responsible parties as it is their responsibility to ensure that
lighters do not get into the hand of children. They should be locked and stored.
5. Decide and Explain Nowak v. Faberge USA.
The product can only had the warnings Do not puncture and Do not use near fire or
flame. Nowak sued Faberge for damages under strict liability, alleging that Faberge
failed to warn her of the dangers of the flammability of Aqua Net. A product is
considered to be defective if it does not provide sufficient warnings of the dangers of
using the product. Since Faberge did not provide enough warning on the dangers of the
product they are liable.