A construction worker is operating a crane near a busy intersection when the crane's arm unexpectedly malfunctions and drops a heavy beam. The beam crashes through the roof of a passing car, causing serious injuries to the driver. Subsequent investigation reveals that the crane's malfunction was caused by both a defect in its design by the manufacturer and improper maintenance by the construction company. Which factor is the BEST explanation for determining whether the manufacturer is liable for the driver's injuries?
Whether the accident could have been anticipated based on the crane's operating environment.
Whether the design defect contributed to the crane's failure.
Whether the manufacturer provided warnings about risks associated with crane operation.
Whether the construction company’s maintenance practices caused the accident.
The correct answer highlights the causal relationship between the defective design and the harm caused by the crane's failure. Courts use both 'but for' causation and substantial factor analysis to determine whether the manufacturer's conduct was a link in the chain of events leading to harm. While maintenance practices and warnings are relevant considerations, they do not address the causal role of the design defect itself. The foreseeable nature of the accident pertains more to proximate cause analysis than to establishing the manufacturer's role as a cause-in-fact.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is 'but for' causation in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does substantial factor analysis mean in the context of liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why are maintenance practices and manufacturer warnings relevant in this case?