According to the legal dictionary, a viable cause of action is an event or series of events that gives the plaintiff or grieved a chance to go for judicial redress of the situation or harm done to the person (thefreedictionary.com).
The case of Abramowitz is not too strong to recover the damages that she received from the defective product. The product liability will be difficult to ascertain. Since the product came prepackaged and the shop owner did not have any opportunity to discover that the product was faulty, defective or not true for its purpose, he cannot be held liable.
Her success against the actual maker of the sandwich depends on whether her case qualifies for the Consumer Expectation test or Foreign Substances Test. In the Foreign substances test, the attorneys for the sandwich maker are going to argue that the bones is natural to the pig, and they are likely to win the case unless Samantha can prove that is a foreign substance, which is extremely difficult looking at the case.
In order to win the case, Samantha should use the expectation test since no right minding consumer would expect a half inch long bone in a prepackaged sandwich. Therefore, in order to win the case, Samantha’s attorney should use the expectation test in order recover the damages for her. If they chose foreign substance test, they are likely to lose and Samantha would not be able to recover anything from the Sandwich maker.
In other words, it can be concluded that Samantha cannot recover anything from the shopkeeper and can only recover the damages from the sandwich maker using the expectation test.
Works Cited:
TheFreeDictionary.com,. 'Cause Of Action'. N.p., 2014. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
