Analyze the following scenario.

our answer should not discuss issues of only tangential pertinence, but you should fully analyze pertinent issues.

You represent Peter Nyhart for the purpose of bringing claims for personal injuries.  At the time of the accident, Mr. Nyhart was working as a waiter and was injured while attempting to open a bottle of champagne.  As Mr. Nyhart was removing the foil from the plastic cork, the neck of the bottle broke with explosive force.  A flying glass chip lacerated the cornea of his left eye and the jagged edge of the broken bottle severed arteries and tendons in his right wrist.

An expert who examined the remnants of the broken bottle has concluded that there can be no doubt that the neck of the bottle contained a fracture that weakened it and caused it to break when Mr. Nyhart exerted moderate lateral pressure on the neck.

The bottle of champagne that broke in the client’s hands was produced by BMX Corporation.  BMX purchases new wine bottles from Molinar Glass Works.  Molinar manufactures the bottles to design specifications established by BMX.

The partner who is handling Nyhart’s claims would like your assessment of the chances of reaching the jury with a claim that the champagne bottle in question was defectively designed.  The partner is entertaining the possibility that the bottle could and should have been designed more sturdily, so that it would have been able to withstand rougher handling.  BMX uses the “standard” bottle in the American champagne industry; therefore, it is unlikely that we will be able to show that any other America champagne manufacturer uses heavier, stronger glass bottles.  Using heavier bottles would add to the costs of production and shipping, to an extent not determined by investigation to this point.  We might also argue that some stronger, less likely to shatter type of bottle other than glass—plastic, for example—should have been used.  Finally, the partner suggests that you consider the possibility that the glass bottle should have been encased in some sort of mesh jacket that would have held the pieces together in the event of bottle breakage, thus reducing the chances of injury.  “If it came down to whether the costs of supplying such a safety feature were justified,” the partner asks, “wouldn’t that be a question for the jury?” 

Making reasonable assumptions of fact where necessary, and indicating what further inquiries are required, prepare an analysis of the possibilities of reaching the jury against Molinar and BMX on the theory of defective design.

***** Please use chapter 13 and Chapter 7 as reference and outside sources********* 

Textbook Chapter 13 (Strict Products Liability) and the information we covered in Unit 7

“Essentials Tort Law” Edition: 2006 Author: Geistfield, Mark ISBN 13: 978-0-7355-6828-0  ISBN 10: 0-7355-6828-6  Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Publisher Imprint: Aspen Publishers