Now that the details of the case as well as the arguments for each side have been discussed the case must be decided. The proximate cause of the injury is the defendant’s product the Taurus. The Taurus is the proximate cause due to the foreseeability test. Proximate cause is determined by whether the injury was foreseeable Hastings for Pratt vs. Seegars fence Co. 128 N.C.App. 166. The defendant should have foreseen that the bad design of the seatbelts could lead to injury in the event of a crash. Thus said the plaintiff would sue for strict liability and negligence due to the defective engine and the defective seatbelt. The defendant’s defense of contributory negligence would be effective because despite Ford’s warning about not using booster seats the Stark’s chose to not use a booster seat. This reduces the liability on Ford Motor Co. for negligence and strict product liability. The second defense, Assumption of the risk will also help negate remedies toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not use a booster seat despite knowing the danger of doing so. The defendant’s defense, Assumption of the risk will barre recovery for the plaintiff for remedies related to the harm that was caused by the risk. This is because, “A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent or reckless conduct of …show more content…
Cheyenne would have been injured even if she had been sitting on a booster seat due to the defective seatbelt. Due to this fact the aforementioned defenses cannot barre complete recovery from the plaintiff. The Defendant has one more defense that is still applicable to the case. The infeasibility of alternative design defense will extinguish the plaintiff’s claim that there were valid affordable alternative options because they failed to provide proof that the alternative choices would have been more effective in keeping Cheyenne safe. This defense negates the seatbelt