Weekly Bar Question 02/04/08

 Answer: 

(D) is the best response, because it correctly identifies the level of proof Price’s negligence claim will require.In order to prevail against Motorco in negligence, Price will have to prove that Motorco failed to exercise such care as a reasonable person in its position would have exercised, this must have been a breach of the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to anyone in plaintiff’s position, and this breach must have caused plaintiff’s damages.  Here, Motorco is not the manufacturer of the defective part; thus, it will be liable only for its own, affirmative negligence (e.g., it couldn’t be liable in negligence for a manufacturing flaw in the bolt, of which it had no reason to know, while Boltco could be held negligent for such a flaw).Here, Motorco did inspect for flaws with the random selection process.  Thus, Price would have to prove that Motorco’s inspection program was not reasonable, and that a reasonable program would have resulted in the defect being discovered (thus satisfying the causation element of negligence).  Since D recognizes this, it’s the best answer. 

(A) is not the best response, because it understates the proof Price will need for a negligence claim against Motorco.In order to prevail against Motorco in negligence, Price will have to prove that Motorco failed to exercise such care as a reasonable person in its position would have exercised, this must have been a breach of the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to anyone in plaintiff’s position, and this breach must have caused plaintiff’s damages.  Here, Motorco is not the manufacturer of the defective part; thus, it will be liable only for its affirmative negligence (e.g., it couldn’t be liable for a negligently-created manufacturing flaw in the bolt).  Of course, this could take the form of a negligent failure to inspect, or, if inspection is undertaken, it could be done negligently.Thus, the mere fact that the bolt was defective will be insufficient to pin negligence on Motorco.  Instead, it must have done something unreasonable in terms of either failing to inspect or incorporating the bolt into the car.  If, for instance, the bolt was defective and Motorco’s random testing program was reasonable, Motorco couldn’t be held liable in negligence.  Thus, merely proving that the bolt was defective would be insufficient for a prima facie case of negligence, making A not the best response. 

(B) is not the best response, because it understates what Price will actually need to prove for a prima facie negligence claim.In order to prevail against Motorco in negligence, Price will have to prove that Motorco failed to exercise such care as a reasonable person in its position would have exercised, this must have been a breach of the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to anyone in plaintiff’s position, and this breach must have caused plaintiff’s damages.  Here, Motorco is not the manufacturer of the defective part; thus, it will be liable only for its own, affirmative negligence (e.g., it couldn’t be liable in negligence for a manufacturing flaw in the bolt, of which it had no reason to know, while the manufacturer, Boltco, could be liable for such a flaw). Thus, merely proving that the bolt was defective and Motorco failed to inspect it would be insufficient.  Instead, the failure to inspect the bolt would have to be unreasonable.  A “middleman” has a duty to inspect for defects only if it has some reason to believe the product is likely to be defective.  Under these facts, the bolts were inspected at random; thus, Price would have to prove that this inspection system itself was unreasonable.  Assume that B is correct in stating that the bolt was defective and hadn’t been inspected by Motorco.  Without going the extra step, and proving this failure to inspect was unreasonable, Price won’t have a prima facie case for negligence.  Since B understates what Price will have to prove, it can’t be the best response. 

(C) is not the best response, because it understates what Price will have to prove for a prima facie negligence claim.  In order to prevail against Motorco in negligence, Price will have to prove that Motorco failed to exercise such care as a reasonable person in its position would have exercised, this must have been a breach of the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to anyone in plaintiff’s position, and this breach must have caused plaintiff’s damages.  Here, Motorco is not the manufacturer of the defective part; thus, it will be liable only for its own, affirmative negligence (e.g., it couldn’t be liable in negligence for a manufacturing flaw in the bolt, of which it had no reason to know, while the manufacturer, Boltco, could be held negligent in creating such a flaw). Thus, proving the bolt was defective, was inspected by Motorco, and the defect was not discovered, would not be sufficient for negligence; Price would also have to prove that the failure to find the defect was unreasonable.  Since C doesn’t recognize this, it’s not the best response.