Al bought a case of beer because his friends were coming over to watch the Grey Cup game. During the game, Al opened a beer, poured about a third of it into Bob's glass, and handed the can to Chuck. Bob noticed the strange orange colour of the beer and called everyone's attention to it; unfortunately, Chuck had drunk most of the beer from the can before he heard Bob. There had been a small battery in the can that contaminated the beer. Chuck was seriously injured. On these facts, which of the following is true?

A) Since Chuck did not buy the beer, he has no cause of action against anyone.
B) Chuck could sue Al successfully for negligence because Al handed the contaminated beer to Chuck.
C) Bob could sue Al successfully for negligence because Al poured the contaminated beer in Bob's glass.
D) Because Chuck did not buy the beer, he could not sue the seller for breach of contract, but he could sue the beer manufacturer in tort.
E) Bob could successfully sue the manufacturer for negligence because he need only prove that the manufacturer owed him a duty of care and need not prove damages.

Question

Briana Stephenson · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : D, Explanation :  Chuck's injury from the contaminated beer allows him to pursue a tort claim against the manufacturer for negligence, despite not being the purchaser. This is because tort law, unlike contract law, does not require a direct transaction between the injured party and the party responsible for the injury.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions