Complete 1 page APA formatted article: BRIEF OF CASE. Brief of Case Case Leesa Bunch, a Minor, etc. v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. and McMasker Enterprises,Inc.2. Procedure After suffering a creepy nec

Complete 1 page APA formatted article: BRIEF OF CASE. Brief of Case Case Leesa Bunch, a Minor, etc. v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. and McMasker Enterprises,Inc.

2. Procedure

After suffering a creepy neck injury in the summer of 1993, Bunch filed a suit against corporations, including McMasker for products liability, negligence, warranty breach and failure to warn. After the petition, McMasker pursued settlement with Bunch after the plaintiff informed the company about the default judgment. Later after settlement, Bunch amended her complaint to replace Hoffinger with Doe defendants. Hoffinger filed a motion to appeal.

3. Facts

Eleven-year old Leesa Bunch broke her neck after diving into a four-foot deep, aboveground. The dive rendered Bunch quadriplegic and she later filed a case against Hoffinger Industries, Inc. and McMasker Enterprises Inc., the liner seller, among others. McMasker Enterprises Inc. Eventually, McMasker Enterprises Inc. managed to settle their issues with Bunch.

4. Issue (s) or question(s)

Did Hoffinger owe any duty to warn of the danger of diving into shallow aboveground pool?

Were Hoffinger’s omissions the ultimate cause of Bunch’s injury?

5. Decision

The court examined the adequacy of the warning that Hoffinger provided and questioned if the caution was clear for an eleven-year old child. Hoffinger’s discharge of duty to warn was also put into doubt by the court. As such, the court decided in favor of Bunch. The court established that Hoffinger’s failure to warn was responsible for the accident. Also, it was established that the design defect was also responsible for the injury, which was reasonably foreseeable.

6. Holding

If the doctrine of primary assumption of risk was applied to this case, then Hoffinger is clearly liable to pay for the damages to Bunch. The company had the duty to protect the plaintiff from foreseeable risks at the aboveground shallow pool.

7. Rationale

The court was right to hold Hoffinger liable by examining the adequacy of the warning and execution of duty of care to the plaintiff, which was found to be insufficient.