Martin wins a car in a lottery. As he already owns a car, he decides to sell the new one to his friend Ted. While driving the car, Ted gets into a head-on collision with another car. Due to a defective Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) in the vehicle, the airbag does not deploy and Ted is seriously injured. Which of the following statements is true of this situation?
A) Martin can be held strictly liable because he sold the car to Ted.
B) The car manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable as Ted had not bought the car from it.
C) Martin cannot be held strictly liable as the sale of the car counts as a casual transaction.
D) The driver of the other car can be held strictly liable due to his or her involvement in the accident.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

DC) Martin, as a non-commercial seller, engaged in a casual or occasional sale, is not subject to strict liability for product defects. This principle generally exempts individuals who are not regularly engaged in the business of selling such goods from strict liability.D) The driver of the other car could potentially be held strictly liable if their actions directly caused the accident, regardless of the product defect. However, strict liability typically applies to product defects rather than actions leading to accidents, making this statement less accurate in the context of product liability. The correct focus for strict liability in this scenario would be on the manufacturer due to the defective product. Therefore, the explanation provided might not fully align with the principles of strict liability as it pertains to product defects, but it's important to consider all parties involved in the incident.

Martin Wins a Car in a Lottery