Questions: During a college Spring break, a student is driving back home from college on a long-isolated country road, when a defective tire suddenly goes flat. The student had recently bought the car from a car dealer. The student is not injured by the flat tire, but has to pull over and wait for someone to help her with changing the car tire. Along comes a recently escaped serial killer prisoner, who abducts and kills the student. The student's family sues the car dealer, car manufacture, and tire manufacture for the wrongful death of the student. Which of the following will most likely serve to deny the family's wrongful death claim? Circle or Check mark the one best answer. a. The Student was contributorily negligent in selecting the isolated country road and not inspecting the tires before the long trip. b. Caveat Emptor applies when the student purchased the vehicle with disclaimer of all warranties.

During a college Spring break, a student is driving back home from college on a long-isolated country road, when a defective tire suddenly goes flat. The student had recently bought the car from a car dealer. The student is not injured by the flat tire, but has to pull over and wait for someone to help her with changing the car tire. Along comes a recently escaped serial killer prisoner, who abducts and kills the student. The student's family sues the car dealer, car manufacture, and tire manufacture for the wrongful death of the student. Which of the following will most likely serve to deny the family's wrongful death claim? Circle or Check mark the one best answer.

a. The Student was contributorily negligent in selecting the isolated country road and not inspecting the tires before the long trip.

b. Caveat Emptor applies when the student purchased the vehicle with disclaimer of all warranties.
Transcript text: 12. During a college Spring break, a student is driving back home from college on a long-isolated country road, when a defective tire suddenly goes flat. The student hadrecently bought the car from a car dealer. The student is not injured by the flat tire, but has to pull over and wait for someone to help her with changing the car tire. Along comes a recently escaped serial killer prisoner, who abducts and kills the student. The student's family sues the car dealer, car manufacture, and tire manufacture for the wrongful death of the student. Which of the following will most likely serve to deny the family's wrongful death claim? Circle or Check mark the one best answer. a. $\qquad$ The Student was contributorily negligent inselecting the isolated country road and not inspecting the tires before the long trip. b. $\qquad$ Caveat Emptor applies when the studentpurchased the vehicle with disclaimer of all warranties.
failed

Solution

failed
failed

The answer is neither A nor B.

Explanation:

a. The Student was contributorily negligent in selecting the isolated country road and not inspecting the tires before the long trip.

  • This option is unlikely to serve as a valid defense for denying the wrongful death claim. Contributory negligence might reduce the amount of damages recoverable but does not typically absolve the defendants (car dealer, car manufacturer, and tire manufacturer) of liability, especially in a wrongful death case. Moreover, the student's choice of road and failure to inspect the tires are not directly related to the defective tire that caused the flat.

b. Caveat Emptor applies when the student purchased the vehicle with a disclaimer of all warranties.

  • Caveat Emptor, or "let the buyer beware," is a principle that places the onus on the buyer to perform due diligence before making a purchase. However, this principle has been significantly limited by consumer protection laws and implied warranties. Even if the car was sold "as is," manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for defects that cause harm, especially if those defects were not disclosed and could not have been discovered by the buyer through reasonable inspection.

The most likely reason the family's wrongful death claim would be denied is that the chain of causation between the defective tire and the student's death is too remote. The proximate cause of the student's death was the criminal act of the escaped serial killer, not the flat tire. The flat tire merely created the condition that made the student vulnerable, but it was not the direct cause of death. Therefore, the wrongful death claim against the car dealer, car manufacturer, and tire manufacturer would likely be denied on the grounds that the criminal act was an unforeseeable intervening cause.

Was this solution helpful?
failed
Unhelpful
failed
Helpful