Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsMedium
A famous artist, known for his abstract sculptures, suffered a severe allergic reaction to a new brand of acrylic paint. He had purchased the paint from an art supply store, relying on the store clerk's recommendation that it was 'hypoallergenic and safe for all skin types.' The artist, who had a known history of severe allergies, had specifically informed the clerk of his condition. The paint manufacturer had not included any warning labels on the product regarding potential allergens, despite knowing that some components could cause reactions in sensitive individuals. The artist sued the paint manufacturer for his medical expenses and lost income. Which of the following is the strongest legal theory for the artist?
- ANegligence, based on the manufacturer's failure to warn of known risks.
- BStrict liability for abnormally dangerous activity.
- CFraud, due to the store clerk's misrepresentation.
- DBattery, as the paint caused a harmful contact with the artist's body.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Negligence, based on the manufacturer's failure to warn of known risks.
The manufacturer had a duty to warn of known dangers associated with its product, especially when those dangers are not obvious to consumers. Their failure to provide such a warning, given their knowledge of potential allergens, constitutes a breach of that duty, leading to negligence.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Manufacturing paint is not typically considered an abnormally dangerous activity that would trigger strict liability.
- C. Fraud would apply to the clerk's misrepresentation, but the question asks for the strongest theory against the *manufacturer*. The clerk's statements are not directly attributable to the manufacturer for a fraud claim without further evidence of manufacturer involvement.
- D. Battery requires an intentional act to cause harmful or offensive contact. The manufacturer did not intend to cause a reaction.
Negligent Failure to Warn
A form of negligence where a manufacturer or seller fails to adequately warn consumers about non-obvious dangers associated with their product, leading to injury.
- Duty to warn of known or knowable dangers.
- Danger must be non-obvious to an ordinary user.
- Failure to warn breaches this duty.
- Breach must cause the plaintiff's injury.
Memory trick: Defective product? Negligence, Strict, or Warranty: Pick Your Path.