Facts: In this case, the plaintiff, Gary O’Brien uninvited guest who was injured when he dove into

the shallow above ground pool manufactured by Muskin Corporation and distributed by Kiddie
City Inc., the defendants. Plaintiff’s outstretched arms slid over the vinyl-lined bottom of the pool,
slid apart and he hit his head, causing the injuries.

The pool was purchased by Arthur Henry and was set up in their backyard in 1971. The pool was
only 3 and one-half feet in depth and the outer wall of the pool had a company logo and one and
a half-inch “Do Not Drive” warning letters. Three years later Gary(plaintiff), trespassed into
their property and dove into the pool. Plaintiff claimed that the product does not have adequate
warnings or cautions and also proved that the vinyl lining used for the pool surface is twice as
slippery as rubber latex.

In his first trial, the jury found Mr. O'Brien was guilty of contributory negligence, and allocated
fault for the injury as 15% attributable to Muskin and 85% attributable to O'Brien. He then
appealed and argued that the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider the design
defect theory of liability and asked it to consider the risk of harm was greater than the benefit of
using the vinyl.

Legal issue presented: Is the seller of a product (in this case, Muskin Corporation) strictly liable
for selling a poorly built and marketed the pool knowing of the risk of injury it involves? Were
adequate warning/cautions mentioned on the product?

Rule of law applied: Strict product liability law had been undertaken to solve this issue. In this
manufacturer foresees the risks that occur while using the product and do not place the defective
product in the market commerce. The liability of this law reflects that by advertising the product,
the manufacturer assumes responsibility to the public who are injured due to defects or design
flaws in the product.

Conclusion: The previous jury was only able to look if there was a presence of warning to not
dive into the pool and they failed with providing adequate proof of the slippery floor of the pool.
So, after further investigation, it was found that the vinyl bottom of the floor could have been
thicker with deep embossing, which reduces the slipperiness. Hence judge believed that risk-
utility analysis could have been used to definite outcomes in the previous session. But risk-utility
analysis is appropriate when a product functions acceptably under a set of conditions, yet its
design presents undue risk of injury for other users in different situations. The judgment was
reversed and a new trial was set up.