Do you think that Wile E Coyote would win in a lawsuit against Acme for defective equipment?

Answer 1

Well, under products liability, there are basically five theories that could be asserted.

We never see any specific advertising, nor does Mr.C ever talk to an ACME rep, so there is no express warranty being offered that we can prove from available evidence. Nor, likely, could we show failure of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Especially, since Mr.C apparently mis-uses the products frequently.

As to the implied warranty of merchantability, this requires that the product be fit for general use in the stream of commerce. To prevail, Mr.C would need to show that no reasonable use of the product would be safe, or that his particular use was reasonably foreseeable (based on marketing literature and expected consumers). For many of the products that seem to just randomly fail, this is a solid claim.

Which brings us to strict products liability, of which there are three types: Design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn.

To prove a design defect, Mr.C would need to show that the product was produced as intended, was inherently and unreasonably dangerous as designed, and that alternative designs (less dangerous) were not readily available. Again, for many of the products that seem to just randomly fail without performing their apparently intended function, this is a solid claim.

It's difficult, based on available evidence, to distinguish the faulty designs from what appear to be manufacturing defects. A manufacturing defect is when the product is not constructed as designed, where the defect cannot be eliminated regardless of how much effort is made, yet the defect still poses a significant and unreasonable risk of harm. Further discovery would be required on individual products to determine which were designed improperly and which simply had manufacturing defects.

Finally, the third strict liability theory is insufficient warnings. Given the lost customer history between Mr.C and ACME, we can reasonably impute constructive knowledge against ACME that their designs will be used in a wide variety of ways. This makes such uses foreseeable, and thus proper warnings are required.

Which brings us back to Mr.C. It is unclear from the facts on record whether the products actually have warnings as part of the instructions, which he ignores, or whether there are no warnings. If there are no warnings, then strict liability applies.

However, if there are sufficient warnings which are being ignored, then we have two defenses ACME can assert. The first is Assumption of the Risk. If ACME can show that Mr.C had reasonably knowledge of the risks involved in using the product as he intended to, and consciously chose to encounter (or ignore) that risk, then Mr.C will have assumed the risk. ACME will not be liable.

This brings us back to the question of constructive notice. Assumption of the Risk requires that Mr.C have actual knowledge of the contents of the warnings and that the warnings are sufficiently detailed. If Mr.C simply doesn't read the warnings, then Assumption of the Risk doesn't apply. However, if he reasonably should have read the warnings provided (assuming for the moment they were sufficient), then his case may be kicked out under a Contributory Fault defense theory, if his jurisdiction followed that rule.

Even if none of the normal products liability theories would work, Mr.C could still assert a straight negligence cause of action. He would need to show that ACME owed him a duty as a foreseeable plaintiff, which is not a problem given their long customer history. Mr.C would also need to show that ACME breached that duty by shipping defective equipment, and that his damages were are foreseeable result of that breach. Actual causation is pretty easy to show, as are actual damages. Again, Assumption of the Risk and Contributory Fault (or Comparative Negligence) defenses would apply.

As for standing, the cartoon jurisdiction has existing precedent that anthropomorphic animals are subject to jurisdiction in the courts. And if a critter can be a defendant then they can also be a plaintiff.

ACME will be found to have sufficient contacts with the target jurisdiction, based on the above described long customer interaction and direct shipping of products to that jurisdiction. And since we have actual damages from past harms, the case is ripe.

That leaves only subject matter jurisdiction. There is no apparent federal statute granting products liability relief and providing a federal question jurisdiction. Such claims would therefore need to be brought in state courts, unless Mr.C and ACME satisfy the diversity requirements to get into federal court.

Answer 2

I always wondered if Wile E. coyote could afford to buy all that defective stuff from Acme, why didn't he just order a pizza instead of trying to eat the roadrunner?? However since it appears he is the only one with the defective equipment, he should sue on his own and there does not seem to be anyone to enjoin with. I don't think Bugs Bunny was a carnivore, he was more interested in carrots and so was Daffy Duck, so no class action suit would be appropriate.

Answer 3

Nope, he's not a legal person, he's a *coyote*, the bipedal position doesn't matter, the judge would toss the case out and any lawyer dumb enough to take the case would be disbarred, because it is clear that "Mr. Coyote" is prima facie incompetent to manage his own affairs, at least on a level the legal system would recognize by the "reasonable man" standard, since he isn't Homo Sapiens, for whom applicable laws of warranty and safety for a particular purpose were implicitly written.

This is what happens to anthro/furries that live alone out in the desert claiming "super-genius": they forget to snag a human agent or three to act in loco parentis.

Answer 4

No more Wile E Coyote shows if those ACMEs were defective!

Answer 5

it would look like it, but it would turn out that his lawyer was from Acme Law School.

Answer 6

the main reason I'm going to give is because he is an animal he has no legal standing in court.

Answer 7

yes he gets hurt alot.......i guess you could get a fair amount of money from someone if there equiptmen sends you off a cliff

Answer 8

no. he never reads the instructions or sends the warranty cards off

Answer 9

depends on his lawyer