Reference no: EM13784861
"Squirt Gun Mishap." Zora decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Rambo, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of the very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under eleven, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Rambo had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. One of the children, Sam, who was ten years old at that time, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. He began shooting with the pebbles and hit Alice in the eye, requiring an emergency room visit. Alice required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Alice's parents complained that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party but did not notice any warnings whatsoever affixed directly to the product. Alice's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Rambo's mother.
Which of the following is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Alice's parents against the manufacturer for negligence?
a) Because neither Alice nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller, no one other than Rambo's mother may be sued for negligence.
b) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Alice's parents would be unable to prevail in an action against the manufacturer for negligence because they did not read the instruction booklet.
c) Alice's parents would be prohibited from suing the manufacturer because of the federal law prohibiting lawsuits for failure to warn in cases involving children.
d) Privity of contract is not necessary in order to sue for negligence so the fact that neither Alice nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller would not prevent a negligence based action.
e) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Alice's parents would be unable to prevail in a negligence action because Alice did not sustain permanent physical injury.