Can you think of any products that do not fit this definition?

In the case of Donald C. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.1. To reach the result in this case, the court applied a definition of inherently dangerous products that included products that place life and limb in peril when negligently made. Can you think of any products that do not fit this definition? If so, should the requirement of privity of contract apply in cases involving injuries caused by defects in those products?2. In light of the reasoning in this case, are there any limits to the liability of a manufacturer for injuries attributable to negligently made products? If so, what is the basis for those limits?In the case of Donald C. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.1. To reach the result in this case, the court applied a definition of inherently dangerous products that included products that place life and limb in peril when negligently made. Can you think of any products that do not fit this definition? If so, should the requirement of privity of contract apply in cases involving injuries caused by defects in those products?2. In light of the reasoning in this case, are there any limits to the liability of a manufacturer for injuries attributable to negligently made products? If so, what is the basis for those limits?

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now