Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo's product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of
A) preemption.
B) inadequate warning.
C) comparative negligence.
D) product misuse.

Question

Flo is working on a construction site when she is injured on the job in the collapse of a Girder Company-made beam. At the time, Flo is not wearing any safety gear. In Flo's product liability suit against Girder, the company can most successfully raise the defense of​
A) ​preemption.
B) ​inadequate warning.
C) ​comparative negligence.
D) ​product misuse.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In this scenario, Girder Company can most successfully raise the defense of comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is a legal theory that allows a defendant to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries. In this case, Flo was not wearing any safety gear, which could be seen as negligent behavior on her part. Therefore, Girder may argue that Flo's lack of safety gear was a contributing factor to her injuries, and that she was partially responsible for her own damages. By successfully proving comparative negligence, Girder could potentially reduce their liability and the amount they would be required to pay in damages.

Flo Is Working on a Construction Site When She Is