Under the statute in the previous question,VividAire,Inc. ,makes and markets aromatic liquid air fresheners.The products' labels do not warn against ingesting the liquid.Under the reasoning of the majority in the Greene case,the conclusion in VividAire's situation would be that
A)a failure of the product to freshen the air would breach VividAire's contract with consumers.
B)any loss to VividAire in marketing its product could be recouped by increasing the prices of other products.
C)any material risk involved with ingesting the liquid is,or should be,obvious.
D)VividAire would be liable for bodily harm,but not brain damage,to a user who ingests the liquid.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Under the reasoning of the majority in the Greene case, the statute imposes a duty on manufacturers to warn of any material risk, but not obvious risks. Therefore, if the risk of ingesting the liquid is obvious, then VividAire would not be required to warn against it.

Under the Statute in the Previous Question,VividAire,Inc