A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Need a paper written? Our academic experts can create an original essay on any subject for ~~$13.00~~ $11/page Learn More

Scripto-Tokai’s defense, in this case, contended that the dangers of a lighter were open and obvious. However, the threat that a lighter represents would not be evident to a child. The argument draws on the point stated above that the parents should be responsible for the safe handling of tools. Fire is a well-known hazard, and according to “Calles v. Scripto,” the corporation alleged that the lighter worked as expected and did not require additional changes or warnings. Parents should have made the item inaccessible to children through their efforts and educated them about the dangers of interacting with flame and fire sources. However, this defense is not valid because of the factors and risks involved in the situation.

Parents are people who can make mistakes, particularly with regard to the handling of potentially dangerous tools. They may forget to address a specific concern or misjudge the accessibility of a location to children. Furthermore, the risks associated with unsupervised children starting fires include the loss of life and property, making the risk too high to afford. The final issue is the fact that, according to “Calles v. Scripto,” the design could accommodate a safety device without a significant increase in cost. The lighters were easily operated by children, unlike many other hazardous devices, and so required an extra degree of caution put into their design.

Rate the answer:

Answer by Academic.tip's expert

An answer to this question is provided by one of our experts who specializes in law. Let us know how much you liked it and give it a rating.

Cite this page

Select a citation style:

References

Academic.Tips. (2021) 'A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why'. 22 June.

Reference

Academic.Tips. (2021, June 22). A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why? https://academic.tips/question/a-product-is-also-unreasonably-dangerous-when-its-maker-fails-to-use-an-alternative-design-that-was-economically-feasible-and-less-dangerous-scripto-tokai-corporation-contended-that/

References

Academic.Tips. 2021. "A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?" June 22, 2021. https://academic.tips/question/a-product-is-also-unreasonably-dangerous-when-its-maker-fails-to-use-an-alternative-design-that-was-economically-feasible-and-less-dangerous-scripto-tokai-corporation-contended-that/.

1. Academic.Tips. "A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?" June 22, 2021. https://academic.tips/question/a-product-is-also-unreasonably-dangerous-when-its-maker-fails-to-use-an-alternative-design-that-was-economically-feasible-and-less-dangerous-scripto-tokai-corporation-contended-that/.

Bibliography

Academic.Tips. "A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?" June 22, 2021. https://academic.tips/question/a-product-is-also-unreasonably-dangerous-when-its-maker-fails-to-use-an-alternative-design-that-was-economically-feasible-and-less-dangerous-scripto-tokai-corporation-contended-that/.

Work Cited

"A product is also “unreasonably dangerous” when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto-Tokai Corporation contended that because its product was “simple” and the danger was “obvious,” it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?" Academic.Tips, 22 June 2021, academic.tips/question/a-product-is-also-unreasonably-dangerous-when-its-maker-fails-to-use-an-alternative-design-that-was-economically-feasible-and-less-dangerous-scripto-tokai-corporation-contended-that/.

Copy