Questions: Kevin is preparing his wife's favorite stir-fry dish for dinner. As Kevin is chopping the vegetables for the stir-fry, his hand slips and he cuts his hand on the sharp knife. Kevin's wife rushes him to the emergency room. Kevin receives twenty stitches because the cut is so deep. Kevin wants to sue the knife manufacturer for damages. Kevin claims that the knife was defective because it was unreasonably dangerous. If Kevin files a strict liability lawsuit against the knife manufacturer, he will: a. win, because a knife is an unreasonably dangerous product. b. lose only if he was not using the knife in the manner in which it should be used. c. win, if he can prove that he was not careless with the knife. d. lose, because a sharp knife is hot unreasonably dangerous.

The answer is D: lose, because a sharp knife is not unreasonably dangerous.

Explanation for each option:

a. Win, because a knife is an unreasonably dangerous product.

• This option is incorrect. A knife, by its nature, is a sharp tool designed to cut. It is not considered unreasonably dangerous because its sharpness is an inherent and expected characteristic necessary for its function.

b. Lose only if he was not using the knife in the manner in which it should be used.

• This option is misleading. While improper use can affect liability, the key issue in strict liability is whether the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous. A knife being sharp does not make it defective or unreasonably dangerous.

c. Win, if he can prove that he was not careless with the knife.

• This option is incorrect. In a strict liability case, the focus is on the product's condition, not the user's behavior. Even if Kevin was not careless, the knife's sharpness alone does not constitute a defect.

d. Lose, because a sharp knife is not unreasonably dangerous.

• This option is correct. A knife is expected to be sharp, and its sharpness is not considered a defect. Therefore, it is not unreasonably dangerous under strict liability standards.