Question

A woman purchased a new refrigerator from an appliance store. Two weeks later, she sold the refrigerator to her son, who had just moved into a townhome. Soon afterwards, the thermostat in the freezer malfunctioned. The son contacted an independent service technician, who installed a new cooling panel. One month later, the freezer stopped working again, this time causing all the frozen food and ice to melt and damage a hardwood floor. The son contacted the appliance store, which informed the son that the technician had installed a cooling panel designed for an older model refrigerator. The appliance store then proceeded to install the proper cooling panel at no charge, and the appliance worked properly after that. The son brought a products liability action based on strict liability against the appliance store for the damage caused to his hardwood floor. Assume the parties stipulate to the above facts. Both parties have moved for a directed verdict. Should the court grant either of the motions

Answer 1

Answer: The court shouldn't grant either of them motion, due to the fact that the jury must determine whether the damage was due to the technician's installation of the improper cooling panel.

Explanation:

Based on the information given and assuming that both parties have moved for a directed verdict, then the court should not grant either of the motions.

The court shouldn't grant either of them motion, due to the fact that the jury must determine whether the damage was due to the technician's installation of the improper cooling panel.