Substrate Record: qid 1883

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1883 · law

Question: A 20-year-old student at a state university enrolled in the university's R. O. T. C (Reserve Officers' Training Corps. ) program. As part of her R. O. T. C. training, the student was required to spend three weeks at a camp for Marine Corps. summer field exercises. While at the camp, the student was given a new synthetic helmet to wear during her basic training. An agency purchased the new high-technology helmets for the Army and Marine Corps. to replace the old "steel pot" headgear worn for decades by U. S. soldiers. These new synthetic helmets were manufactured by a corporation and were made of Kevlar, an extremely tough fiber material with high energy-absorbing qualities that made it stronger in some ways than steel. When the student received her helmet from the Marine Corps. , it was packaged in the original carton supplied by the corporation. On the box, there was a picture that depicted an off-duty marine wearing the helmet while riding a bicycle. One afternoon after training, the student decided to take a ride on her bicycle. Believing that it could be used as a bicycle helmet, the student decided to use it for that purpose. During the ride, the student hit a deep pothole that caused her to be thrown headfirst from the bicycle. As she was flying through the air, the strap from her helmet came loose, and the helmet fell off her head. The student landed on a lawn and was temporarily knocked unconscious. She suffered serious head injuries. If the student asserts a claim against the corporation to recover damages for her injuries, she will most likely

1. not prevail, because the student failed to secure the helmet strap properly.
2. prevail, because the corporation was negligent in their depiction of the helmet's use.
3. prevail, because the corporation failed to test the helmet for use in non-combat situations.
4. prevail, because under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur negligence can be inferred from the fact that the helmet came off the student's head.
5. prevail, because the original package depicted a picture of a cyclist wearing the helmet.
6. prevail, because the corporation should have provided a warning against using the helmet for non-military purposes.
7. not prevail, because the student assumed the risk by choosing to use the helmet while cycling.
8. not prevail, because the helmet had been properly designed by the corporation for its intended use by the Army and Marine Corps.

Our answer: E. prevail, because the original package depicted a picture of a cyclist wearing the helmet. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer