A homeowner purchased a riding lawn mower from a lawn mower dealer. During his first use of the mower, the homeowner noticed that the mower was vibrating when he turned, but he was able to finish mowing. A few days later, the homeowner lent the mower to his neighbor. The neighbor was driving the mower back to his yard when he made a turn and a wheel broke off, causing the neighbor to be thrown off the lawn mower and onto the sidewalk. The neighbor was injured. The neighbor brought a negligence action against the dealer for his injuries. At trial, the neighbor presented evidence that the wheel broke because of a manufacturing defect. The dealer presented evidence that the homeowner could have discovered the defect after the mower began vibrating when he used it for the first time. In this action, who is likely to prevail?

Question

Social Studies

Kale Chapman

Today, 18:10

A homeowner purchased a riding lawn mower from a lawn mower dealer. During his first use of the mower, the homeowner noticed that the mower was vibrating when he turned, but he was able to finish mowing. A few days later, the homeowner lent the mower to his neighbor. The neighbor was driving the mower back to his yard when he made a turn and a wheel broke off, causing the neighbor to be thrown off the lawn mower and onto the sidewalk. The neighbor was injured. The neighbor brought a negligence action against the dealer for his injuries. At trial, the neighbor presented evidence that the wheel broke because of a manufacturing defect. The dealer presented evidence that the homeowner could have discovered the defect after the mower began vibrating when he used it for the first time. In this action, who is likely to prevail?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Kaydence Alvarez · Answer 1

The correct option is D

Explanation:

In this action, the dealer is likely to prevail. The reason for this is, while the homeowner would have discovered the defect when he used it for the first time, there was no way the dealer was supposed to know that the mower was defective. In fact, there is no concrete evidence to show that the dealer had any reason to be aware of the defect of the lawn mower.