Reference no: EM131640907

Joe is a resident of the state of Penn York (obviously a completely made up U.S. state). Joe buys a bottle of Sprite, and spots a small needle inside the unopened bottle. Joe’s buddies dare him to drink the Sprite, but Joe wisely declines. However, after one of his buddies offers him a $100 bill to drink the Sprite, Joe chugs it down. Joe then suffers physical injury when the needle sticks in his throat. Joe sues the company that makes Sprite for negligence. The company defends itself by arguing assumption of risk on Joe's part. Penn York, however, is one of the states that have eliminated assumption of risk as a separate defense in product liability cases. Instead, it has a comparative fault (comparative negligence) statute. Answer both of the following questions in the space provided below and be sure to label your answers to each as A) and B). Don't worry about the small size of the space in which to answer; it will expand as you type. A) What is the result of Joe's lawsuit under the state's comparative fault (comparative negligence) statute? Explain your answer. B) What would be the result of Joe's lawsuit if Penn York used the law of contributory negligence rather than comparative fault? Explain your answer.