Dive into above-ground pool

by Walter Olson on August 5, 2010

It resulted in a lost product liability action against the pool maker in a recent Rhode Island case [Abnormal Use]


1 Ps 08.05.10 at 9:16 am

What? An idiot actually loses a case concerning her idiocy? Say it ain’t so.

2 Richard Nieporent 08.05.10 at 10:52 am

Although the Court addressed Plaintiff’s alternative theories regarding proximate causation (that the coping was unstable and too narrow, such that she lost her balance, or, alternatively, that the coping should have been designed to prevent anyone from standing on it altogether

I guess the pool manufacturer should have covered the coping with spikes to prevent anyone from standing on it. I love it how the lawyers are allowed to make up any number of incompatible alternative theories and hope that the court will find one of them to be plausible.

Further, Plaintiff’s argument that her intoxication should be taken into consideration was also rejected.

By this logic, if you get in a car and drive drunk it is the car manufacturer’s fault for not preventing you from being able to start the car.

Comments on this entry are closed.