Numerical Analysis Question

Description

It’s similar to the previous assignments you’ve done for me however this time you’ll be reading the “Pedal to the Settle” Paper and answer question 1. Question 1: Nolan’s attorney, Ms. Emma Summer, decided that it might be helpful to introduce data that would show that accident rates among drivers wearing flip-flops are higher than the accident rates among drivers wearing other types of footwear. Ms. Summer obtained results of a federal government survey that produced data relating to non-fatal motor vehicle accidents and the nature of footwear that was worn by drivers at the time of the accidents. The data represented the difference between non-fatal accident rates of drivers wearing flip-flops and that of drivers wearing other types of footwear. The survey data is presented in Table 1 below. Ms. Summer is not sure the results of the survey support the position that the accident rate among drivers wearing flip-flops is higher than the accident rate among drivers not wearing flip-flops. She is uneasy with the survey results, fearing that the survey might reveal the worst-case outcome, namely, that drivers who wear flip-flops have lower accident rates than drivers who do not wear flip-flops. In addition, she is unsure how to analyze the data before making a final decision whether or not to use the survey results in settlement negotiations or, if needed, at trial. Ms. Summer needs help in making sense of the data. Does the data support her position? In addition, Ms. Summer is concerned about the limitations that might exist regarding the methods being used to analyze the data. Are there any recommendations that might overcome the limitations?Table 1 will be provided in the files as will the case for you to read and some notes we’ve taken that you must follow.Please make sure to read the entire case to be able to do this correctly. Include an appendix for any work you may need to show for why table 1 is not reliable (look at the file with the notes taken and support why the table is unreliable). If you have any other questions let me know. Also since it’s a group assignment I’ll keep updating you with any other work we get done to keep you in the mix.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PEDAL TO THE SETTLE
It was one of those “dog days” of the summer of 2019 in the Blue View Valley. Temperatures had
been in the low 100 degrees Fahrenheit for the last two weeks. Vivian Hope was at the end of
her rope coping with the heat. Over the hill at the local State Beaches, the daily temperatures for
the last two weeks had been at least 20 degrees cooler than in the Valley. Hope decided to
spend the day at Bright Beach to enjoy the cooler weather and impress other beachgoers with
her new slim figure. For the last several months, Hope had been eating healthy and exercising
daily. In addition, she was eager to show off a stunning yellow polka dot bikini by Federico Dario
and a new pair of Kara Viviana designer flip-flops that she had just purchased from the Kara
Viviana Store during a recent visit to the local mall.
The weather at the beach was just as expected. The skies were a fantastic shade of periwinkle
blue. There was not a trace of pollution in the air; the beach was free of debris; and the coliform
content of the ocean water was within acceptable levels. As she lay on the sand, absorbing the
warmth of the sun, she could smell the wonderful aromas of freshly made buttered popcorn and
cotton candy wafting from the nearby concessions on Bright Pier. Hope could not help but think
that life was good here in paradise.
At day’s end, Hope was on an emotional high. She was feeling as good as she had felt in
months. She decided to head home. Hope had driven to the beach in her new 2019 BMW 4
Series Convertible sports car. Now, with the top down, Hope drove along the coast highway on
her way to the canyon road that would take her over the hills and back into the Valley. While
waiting at a stoplight, Hope was conscious of the stares from occupants of the other vehicles also
waiting at the stoplight. Flattered by the stares and hoping to impress all who could see, she
stepped on the accelerator and started to drive through the intersection at normal speed.
However, as she stepped on the gas pedal, one of the flip-flops Hope was wearing slipped off her
foot and became lodged under the pedal. The automobile continued to accelerate but at a very
rapid rate. Within moments, Hope lost control of the vehicle. In the process, her car crossed the
double yellow line and into oncoming traffic colliding head-on with a car driven by Jacob Nolan.
As a consequence of the accident, Nolan suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in his becoming a
quadriplegic. Nolan’s medical condition is such that he is unable to ever work again. At the time
of his injury: Nolan was 53 years of age; his life expectancy was 77 years of age; he would have
been expected to retire at the age of 65; he was an employee of the United States Postal Service
covered by a union contract projecting his wages to rise by 3.3% per year in real terms plus an
annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) equal to the rate of inflation; and his then current
annual gross salary was $68,000.
Nolan and Hope have each retained legal counsel to represent them in resolving liability issues
that have arisen as a result of the unfortunate circumstances in this case. Nolan has retained Ms.
Emma Summer and Hope has retained Mr. Paxton Rafael.
Required
In preparing for a meeting with Nolan, Ms. Summer has asked your group to evaluate Nolan’s
case. She is particularly interested in the strengths and weaknesses that exist in any lawsuit(s)
that might be filed on behalf of Nolan. Ms. Summer is also interested in the relevance of the
information contained in Table 1 and Table 2 below.
Also, in preparing for the meeting with Nolan and Ms. Summer, your team may want to review the
following: the Friendly Notes article and the Fogel, Wayans and O’Hare cases contained in the
“Pedal to the Settle – Case Library;” business law LDC concepts 2, 4, and 9; financial accounting
LDC concept 7, macroeconomics LDC concept 1; statistics LDC concepts 1, 4, and 7.
Table 1: Government Survey Data
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Difference in Accident Rates =
Flip Flops – Other Footwear
4%
5%
3%
4%
6%
5%
7%
8%
7%
9%
Table 2: Year-End Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Years 2009 to 2018
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Year-End
CPI Value
214.5
218.1
224.9
229.6
233
236.7
237
240
245.1
251.1
PEDAL TO THE SETTLE LIBRARY
MAGAZINE ARTICLE
FASHION
The Flip-Flop Craze
Friendly Notes
January 2009
Today, it seems that everyone is wearing flipflops. Once consigned to the beach or the
locker room, in the last few years flip-flops
seem to have become the footwear of choice
for an entire generation. Flip-flops have
moved from merely being comfortable
footwear for the beach during the summer
months to everyday wear.
They have
evolved from simple $5 dime and drugstore
apparel to $500 designer “knock-ups;” from
no-name to big name designers, including:
Havaianas, Beverly Feldman, Prada, Bianca
Claudio, Ferragamo, and Fontz de Leon; and
from strictly apparel for play to being
acceptable at work and formal social settings.
“There’s a real craze for flip-flops right now,”
says Ron Walko, vice president of marketing
at Bianca Claudio Footwear, “our sales have
tripled in the last two years.”
Despite the increased popularity and
apparent widespread acceptance of this foot
fashion, some are expressing health and
safety concerns stemming from wearing this
type of footwear. From a health perspective,
podiatrists are concerned because of the lack
of support to the bottom of the feet when
wearing flip-flops. Because of the absence of
support the foot lacks stability, leading to
sprains, breaks and falls. In addition, the thin
soles provide no shock-absorbing qualities to
feet and legs placing strain on the arch,
ankle, hips and lower back. Podiatrists
suggest that flip-flops should be worn only for
short periods of time and not as primary
footwear.
In a recent study presented at the annual
meeting of the American College of Sports
Medicine, researchers at Auburn University
found that flip-flops actually alter the way
wearers walk. That change in gait can cause
persistent foot and ankle pain. Researchers
also found that flip-flop wearers take shorter
steps, resulting in more stress on the body
because you have to move more to go the
same distance as people wearing other kinds
of shoes. According to Dr. Anthony Sanchez
of the University of Texas, “that leads to a
higher risk of muscle and joint pain in the
legs, along with tenderness in your toes due
to the constant pressure due to “scrunching”
your toes tightly to keep the flip-flop on your
foot.”
Flip-flops may also not be the best choice for
safety reasons. Regular wearers of flip-flops
often find that they are awkward footwear for
climbing steps, running, or doing anything
else in which the use of one’s feet are
involved. Last summer, a woman wearing
flip-flops while shopping at the Mall of
America in Minneapolis single-handedly shut
down an escalator when one of her flip-flops
became lodged in a moving step. A man in
Atlanta crashed into a storefront window
when he lost control of his bicycle while
wearing flip-flops. One of the flip-flops he
was wearing had slipped off his foot and
jammed up the bike chain.
Automobile safety experts warn that driving in
loose-fitting footwear is dangerous because
the sole can easily get caught under the
brake, clutch or accelerator pedal resulting in
a fatal accident. A poll by the insurer
Eastwich Union appears to confirm these
warnings. A survey of 1,000 drivers found
that a quarter of the drivers indicated that
they regularly drive wearing flip-flops. In
addition, nearly three-quarters of the
motorists surveyed admitted that they found
it difficult to drive when wearing flip-flops.
“Being in control of your car when driving is
essential. However, many of us are ignoring
safety advice when it comes to the shoes we
wear when driving,” said Richard Ponce,
motor marketing manager at Eastwich Union.
He added that “footwear such as flip-flops are
dangerous as the sole can get caught under
a pedal during a simple gear change, when
applying the brake or accelerator, or even
when simply moving the foot from a pedal to
another. The absence of ankle support can
lead to the foot slipping off the pedal
altogether.”
Wearing shoes suitable for
driving, without question, is an important part
of safe driving.
Flip-flops may be the signature statement of
a new generation, but they may not be
sensible shoes for all occasions.
Dr.
Sanchez summed it up best when he added:
“Just because something’s fashionable
doesn’t mean it’s practical or safe for that
matter.
FERN A. FOGEL, Appellee-Plaintiff, vs. GET ‘N GO MARKETS, INC., Appellant-Defendant
COURT OF APPEALS OF GOULD, FIRST DISTRICT70 Gou.App.3d 1048, 23 P.3d 1480
July 4, 2006, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE VANDENBURGH SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable
Minerva McGonagal, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
JUDGES: RAVENCLAW, Judge. HUFFLEPUFF, J., and SLYTHERIN, J., concur.
OPINION BY: RAVENCLAW
OPINION:
Get ‘n Go Markets, Inc. appeals the trial court judge’s denial of its motion for a directed verdict and
motion for judgment n.o.v. We affirm.
Issues
The dispositive issue to our review of this appeal is whether Get ‘n Go Markets, Inc. owed a duty
to Fogel and if so, whether that duty was breached.
Facts
On the morning of April 1, 2000, Fern A. Fogel received extensive lacerations as the result of
walking into and through a large glass panel which formed the front of the building in which Get ‘n
Go Markets, Inc., operated a supermarket. Fogel sued Get ‘n Go Markets for damages in the Gould
state court where the cause was tried and a jury verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant
filed a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and also filed a motion for
judgment n.o.v.
At this point and before proceeding to consideration of the issues presented by this appeal, we
indulge in a resume of the pertinent facts. Get ‘n Go Market is a self-service grocery store in
Johnson County, Gould. The building faces east, and the front or east portion thereof is constructed
of four transparent plate glass panels, each about ten feet square. The two center panels were in
fact sliding doors but were no different in appearance from the two stationary panels. The sliding
doors were closed on the morning in question. The only other front entrance to the store was
through a door located in the north portion of the front of the building. This door was perpendicular
to the glass front and was behind a brick wall which ran parallel to the front of the store and
extended out in front of the door approximately one foot. A soft drink vending machine was also in
front of the north door, and the wall and vending machine caused the north door to be hidden from
the view of a person approaching the front of the building, until the person was approximately six
feet from the glass front. There were no signs or markings of any kind on the glass panels on the
morning of the litigated occurrence and the glass was spotlessly clean. Plaintiff stopped her
automobile with the front facing the vending machine. She got out of the automobile eighteen or
twenty feet from the front of the store and proceeded toward the building intending to enter the
store not to make a purchase but to use its restroom facilities. From the testimony, the jury was
warranted in finding that as plaintiff approached the store she was walking at a normal gait and
with her head up; that although she was looking ahead, she did not see the glass or its bordering
metal frame and saw no reflections from lights or identifying marks of any kind on the glass. She
did not realize until she crashed through the glass, that what she thought was the entrance to the
store was in fact a solid plate glass panel. Defendant assets that plaintiff failed to make a
submissible case and that the court erred in failing to grant its motion for a directed verdict and
motion for judgment n.o.v.
In order to prevail in a claim for negligence,
the plaintiff must establish several points,
referred to in the law as a prima facie case.
The prima facie case for negligence requires
that the plaintiff prove: (1) that a duty was
owed to the plaintiff; (2) that defendant
breached that duty; (3) that the breach
actually (in fact) and legally (proximately)
caused; (4) plaintiff to suffer damage.
Defendant contends that under all of the
evidence favorable to plaintiff and giving to
plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, it conclusively appears that
defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff since
the evidence is clear that the plaintiff was
merely on the premises for the sole purpose
of using the defendant’s restroom facilities
and not to purchase any item(s) from the
store. In addition, defendant contends that a
sign was posted on the door of both the
men’s and women’s restroom conspicuously
stating
“RESTROOM
FACILITIES
RESTRICTED TO USE BY PATRONS
ONLY.” The defendant further contends that
if a duty was owed, defendant did not breach
that duty; that defendant was not guilty of any
actionable negligence, and the issue of
liability should not have been presented to
the jury.
A. DUTY
We first address the argument that no duty
was owed to the plaintiff. In our state the
question of the existence of a duty is one for
the court to determine. In making that
determination Gould courts analyze three
factors in determining whether to impose a
duty at common law: (1) the relationship
between the parties, (2) the reasonable
foreseeability of harm to the person injured,
and (3) public policy concerns.
The
existence of any one of these factors is
sufficient for a court to impose a duty.
Northern Gould Public Service Co. v. Patil, 1
Gou.3d 462, 466 (Gou. 2000). We consider
each of these factors in turn.
1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF
AND DEFENDANT
The defendant contends that there was no
relationship between it and the plaintiff in as
much as the plaintiff was not a customer nor
prospective customer but was a trespasser.
The evidence is undisputed that the sole
purpose for plaintiff’s intent to enter upon
defendant’s premises was to use the
restroom facilities.
A duty of reasonable care is “not, of course,
owed to the world at large,” but generally
arises out of a relationship between the
parties.” Seamus v. Lavender, 104 Gou.2d
929, 931 (Gou. 1991). Fogel was not a
customer of Get ‘n Go and there is no direct
contractual relationship between Fogel and
Get ‘n Go. However, the absence of a direct
contractual relationship does not mean that
no duty exists.
2. THE REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF HARM
TO THE PLAINTIFF
The most important of these considerations
in establishing duty is foreseeability of harm
to the plaintiff. As a general principal, a
“defendant owes a duty of care to all persons
who are foreseeably endangered by his
conduct, with respect to all risks which make
the conduct unreasonably dangerous.”
(citation omitted). In the instant case patrons
of the store are clearly foreseeable. In
addition, defendants posting of the sign on
the restroom doors restricting use to
“PATRONS ONLY” clearly demonstrates that
plaintiff’s presence on the property was
foreseeable. Otherwise, what purpose of the
defendant is to be served by the posting of
such a notice?
The designation of an individual as a
business
“invitee”
or
“licensee”
or
“trespasser” was abolished by our Supreme
Court in the case of Rowling v. Christianson,
120 Gou. 2d 180 (1998). Thus, the existence
or non-existence of the duty imposed on the
proprietor of a business establishment
toward individuals who may come upon his
premises is not contingent on whether the
individual is classified as an invitee, licensee
or trespasser. Following Rowling, a business
proprietor is under a duty to use due care to
keep in a reasonably safe condition the
premises where individuals may be expected
to come and go; if there is a dangerous place
on the premises, the business owner must
safeguard those who come thereon by
warning them of the condition and risk
involved. “The true ground of liability is the
proprietor’s superior knowledge of the
dangerous condition over individuals who
may come upon the property and his failure
to give warning of the risk.” Id. at 187.
3. PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS
There are numerous points that are
considered in the area of public policy
concerns. Among the points are: the moral
blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
the extent of the burden to the defendant and
consequences to the community of imposing
a duty to exercise care with resulting liability
for breach, the policy of preventing future
harm; and the availability, cost and
prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.
Although a business owner is not an insurer
against all accidents that may befall him upon
the premises, in the instant case we believe
that the burden placed upon the defendant by
imposing a duty to exercise care is slight. In
addition, we believe that the policy of
preventing future harm and the availability of
insurance to cover the risk involved in this
case require a finding that Get ‘n Go owed a
duty to Fogel. The trial court was not in error
in instructing the jury as to that point.
B. BREACH OF DUTY
Defendant argues that even if this court were
to find that defendant owed a duty to Fogel it
nevertheless is not liable for Fogel’s injuries
because it did not breach that duty.
Courts approach the question of breach of
duty in several ways.
However, these
various approaches generally attempt to
measure three things: (1) the probability of
the accident’s occurring; (2) the magnitude or
gravity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff if
an accident occurs; and (3) the burden
placed on the defendant to take adequate
precautions to avert the accident. Judge
Learned Hand, in the case of United States v.
Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (Second
Circuit, 1947), attempted to give content to a
relatively simple concept of determining
whether a defendant had breach a duty failed to exercise ordinary care- owed to the
plaintiff. Hand’s attempt to explain the notion
of ordinary care using these three criteria was
stated “in algebraic terms: if the probability be
called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B < PL.” In economic terms multiplying the cost of an accident if it occurs by the probability of its occurrence provides a measure of the benefit than can be anticipated from incurring the costs necessary to prevent the accident (the benefit of not having to pay out tort damages outweigh the costs incurred to prevent the accident from occurring). The cost of prevention is what Hand meant by the “burden of adequate precautions” against the accident. It may be the cost of making the activity safer, or the benefit forgone by curtailing or eliminating the activity. If the cost of safety measures or curtailment whichever cost is lower - exceeds the benefit in accident avoidance to be gained by incurring that cost, an enterprise would be better off, in economic terms, to forgo accident prevention. A rule making the enterprise liable for the accidents that occur in such cases cannot be justified on the ground that it will induce the enterprise to increase the safety of its operations. When the cost of accidents is less than the cost of prevention, a rational profit-maximizing enterprise will pay tort judgments to the accident victims rather than incur the larger cost of avoiding liability. If, on the other hand, the benefits in accident avoidance exceed the costs of prevention, the enterprise is better off if those costs are incurred and the accident averted, and thus the enterprise is made liable, in the expectation that selfinterest will lead it to adopt the precautions in order to avoid a greater cost in tort judgments. It is important to note that Hand’s evaluation of the breach of duty in algebraic terms was not intended to convey the notion that the three factors are easily quantifiable and produce precise results. What can be said about the process is this: as the probability for injury and or the severity of the injury increases, the burden imposed or the cost that must be incurred by the defendant, to avoid being deemed as having breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, also increases. 1. PROBABILITY OCCURRING OF THE ACCIDENT Apparently, the Gould Supreme Court has not had occasion to deal with a plate glass case, but other jurisdictions have. Cases where plaintiff recovered for injuries resulting from contact with plate glass walls or doors are numerous (citations omitted). In addition, the question of liability for injuries resulting from contact with plate glass walls or doors is the subject of an Annotation in the American Law Reports (citation omitted). Here, plaintiff, a citizen of our neighboring state of Grace returning home from a vacation, was a complete stranger to the defendant's premises and had never seen the market before. The invisibility of transparent glass, by its very nature, is likely to deceive the most prudent person, particularly where, as here, the construction was designed to give the market an open front appearance. Furthermore, as noted the north entrance door was obscured from view by the wall and vending machine and was not readily discernible until one approaching the glass front was within six feet thereof. The jury was not required to speculate as to the dangerous and unsafe condition created by the glass front. There was evidence to that effect. A former employee of defendant testified that during a period of eight months he observed four or five persons come in contact with the glass front and 'bounce off'. A safety engineer testified it was a hazardous arrangement, and detailed the methods that could have been employed to correct the lack of visibility of the glass. 2. THE MAGNITUDE OF INJURY There is little doubt that one may suffer injury from accidental contact with a plate glass wall or door. The extent of that injury may certainly vary in range from no injury at all to slight to moderate to severe life threatening injury and even death. Our prior reference to cases where plaintiff recovered for injuries resulting from contact with plate glass walls or doors cases or recovery and the American Law Reports on the subject confirm this belief. 3. THE PRECAUTIONS BURDEN OF ADEQUATE To be sure, transparent plate glass is recognized as a suitable and safe material for use in construction of buildings, indeed, it is common knowledge that such glass is used rather extensively in commercial buildings. However, it seems to us that the number of reported cases, some of which are cited infra, involving personal injuries from bodily contact with transparent glass doors and walls is some indication that with the advantages that may be derived from such construction are concomitant risks which the proprietor must assume. However, in the present case, the danger incident to the use of transparent plate glass may be significantly lessened by the placement of a sticker on the glass that would alert individuals to the presence of the glass. Interference with the architectural aesthetics of construction using transparent plate glass is so slight that it is outweighed by the danger to be anticipated from a failure to use it. Thus, given the relatively high probability of injury and the significant severity of that injury when compared to the nominal cost to the defendant of adequate precautions to prevent the injury, we find no error in the jury’s conclusion that Get ‘n Go breached the duty it owed to Fogel. Without further discussion, we conclude and hold that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could find: (1) that the glass front constituted a dangerous and unsafe condition; (2) that plaintiff was exercising ordinary care for his own safety; (3) that there was a duty on the part of defendant to warn its patrons of the condition and (4) that defendant breached its duty. The judgment is affirmed. GLENN WAYANS, Plaintiff/Appellee v. ALBERT LANDON, Defendant, and BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellant Supreme Court of the State of Gould 35 Gou.3d. 1492, 895 P.2d 718 (1995) May 1, 1995, Decided. HUNTLEY, Associate Justice. This is an appeal from the Order of the Superior Court of Cronkite County of October 10, 1994 denying the defendant Black & Decker Corporation’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. I. Facts The critical facts are not in dispute. On March 15, 1994, Albert Landon purchased a new Lawn Wizard lawn mower from Sears, Roebuck & Co. Sears, Roebuck is not a party to this dispute. The mower was manufactured by Black & Decker Corporation, a manufacturer of consumer power tools, hardware, and home improvement products. On the morning of March 21, 1995, Landon was using the mower to mow the front lawn of his home as Wayans was walking on the sidewalk abutting Landon’s front lawn. Suddenly, while he was passing approximately 15 feet from Wayans, Landon heard a “click” sound and turned to see Wayans cry out and put his hand over his eye. Landon immediately called for emergency medical assistance. Subsequently, Landon and the emergency personnel discovered that Wayans had been struck in the eye by a small plastic toy soldier that belonged to Landon’s son. Apparently, the toy had been left on the lawn by Landon’s son and had not been removed before Landon began mowing the lawn. When the mower passed over the toy, it was picked up and ejected it at high velocity, blinding Wayans’ right eye. The parties have stipulated that there was no warning as to the risk of such an injury included in the owner’s manual. Wayans filed suit against Landon and Black & Decker, asserting a claim for negligence against Landon and a claim in strict tort liability against Black & Decker, asserting that the mower was unreasonably dangerous on the basis that Black & Decker failed to provide warnings to purchasers as to the risk of injury from small objects that might be ejected from under the mower. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wayans and against Landon and Black & Decker. Defendant Black & Decker filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Judge Edward Murrow issued an order denying those motion and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed and we granted review upon defendant’s petition. As to Black & Decker, at trial plaintiff asserted that the mower was unreasonably dangerous on the grounds that defendant failed to warn that it was capable of randomly discharging foreign objects. The defendant responded by presenting evidence, and arguing, that the conduct of co-defendant Adam Landon constituted the sole cause of plaintiff’s injury. The defendant also presented expert opinion evidence that the failure to warn of a readily observable danger was not unreasonably dangerous. The jury entered a verdict in favor the plaintiff in the amount of $1.1 million. Both defendants filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Judge Murrow issued orders denying the motions of both defendants. Defendant Black & Decker appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed, and we granted review upon petition. II. Applicable Law Plaintiff’s claim is grounded in strict tort liability. As distinguished from negligence, which involves a failure to exercise reasonable care, strict liability does not require proof of intent, carelessness, recklessness, or any other fault. In the context of strict liability claims involving injuries from defective products, we have adopted section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. The unreasonable dangerous condition must have caused the plaintiff’s injury or damage. A seller’s liability for personal injury or property damage caused by defective products extends not only to the “ultimate user or consumer,” but also to bystanders and others who are injured by the product. See William L. Prosser, The Fall of the Citadel, 50 MINN. L. REV. 791 (1966). Unlike negligence, strict liability does not require proof of a breach of the duty of care. Among the justifications for imposing strict liability without proof of negligence on the manufacturers and sellers of products is that consumers are less able to inspect products and determine their safety. Thus, “public policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained ... .” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. c (1965). The cost of injuries caused by defective products is imposed on manufacturers and sellers since they can spread the cost of insurance on to all consumers in the prices charged for their products. Therefore, strict liability for defective products may result even though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product ... .” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(A)(2)(a) (1965). For an injured plaintiff to recover in strict liability, the injury must result from a defective condition of the product, the condition must be unreasonably dangerous, and the condition must have existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control. A product is defective if it contains some flaw or deficiency that renders it unreasonably dangerous. The defect may arise from faulty manufacturing or design of the product, or through a failure to warn of a potential danger associated with the product. A manufacturing defect occurs when a product is imperfectly built or assembled. Examples include a bottle of soda pop containing a shard of glass or an electrical saw with missing bolts. A design defect results when an entire product line contains some harmful imperfection or shortcoming making those products hazardous in their normal use. For instance, an automobile that is prone to catch fire on impact or a farm tractor that easily tips over on uneven ground. Finally, a failure to warn defect arises where the manufacturer has failed to alert the user of a risk of potential harm in using the product where the danger is not reasonably observable by the user. For example, a failure to warn of the potential side effects of a drug or a failure to warn that a cleaning product might cause severe skin irritation. The purpose of a warning is to draw a reasonably prudent person’s attention to a danger in using a product and how to avoid it. Strict liability attaches “only where the product is, at the time it leaves the seller’s hands, in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to him.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. g (1965). Whether a failure to warn amounts to an unreasonably dangerous defect turns on whether the product is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. i (1965). Accordingly, we must consider the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer as to the danger involved in using the product in the absence of adequate warnings for safe use. With these principles in mind, we turn to the case at hand. III. Analysis The defendant contends that it was not obligated to furnish a warning to the plaintiff of the hazard to himself or others from passing the mower over small foreign objects while in use. In support of this assertion, the defendant argues that it offered for sale an attachable refuse bag to collect grass cuttings during operation of the mower, and that this, combined with the easily observable fact that grass is cut by a high speed rotary blade and that the cuttings are discharged from side of the mower was sufficient to warn of the danger. We note that the bag was no