short answer (due in 5 hours)

There are  specific defenses that Phone and Build can use for each tort claim within the US Judiciary system. US customers can claim torts of strict products liability, negligence, and a breach of implied warranty of merchantability against the company.

There are multiple defense options for Phone and Build against a strict products liability claim. The company can claim a defense of “misuse of a product.”  Under this defense, the company may avoid liability if the injury to the customer was the result of using the product in a manner for which it was not intended (UMUC, 2017). Phone and Build can also claim the product met Federal and State guidelines for the phone’s design and production, however; this defense would have to be used in conjunction with another strict product liability defense (Gordon, n.d.). Another defense against  strict product liability is “assumption of risk.” This defense claims that the customer assumes the risk of a given activity.  Finally, the company can claim contributory and comparative negligence against the consumer, even though not a defense to a strict products liability claim, if proven it can reduce the amount of damages payable by Phone and Build in this case (Gordon, n.d.). This defense focuses on the customer’s actions involved in causing their own harm.

For a negligence tort claim, Phone and Build can use defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and the “assumption of risk” claim. Contributory negligence limits damages awarded to the customer if their own actions contributed to the harm or injury (Gordon, n.d.). Comparative negligence compares the fault of the company vs the fault of the customer in damages. And once again, the “assumption of risk” claims that the consumer willfully chose to take place of use a product already deemed dangerous by the negligence of another (Gordon, n.d.).

For a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Phone and Build could use former defense options mentioned, but also a newly noted  defense of privity.  To use privity, the company would have to prove the lack of privity by the manufacturer to a suit by a consumer with whom these individuals did not themselves contract (Gordon, n.d.). The customer could recoup damages from the retailer, but not from Phone and Build as the original manufacturer.