Nintendo's "Wii" video game system features games with simulation of tennis and boxing. To play the game, the players use a motion-sensitive controller in their hand. When playing the game, some players, in making the motions necessary for the sport, have lost control of their controllers The controllers have crashed into other objects, including televisions sets, and then injured the players. Players who have been so injured brought a class action suit against Nintendo for a defective wrist strap on the controllers, designed to keep the controllers from flying out of control. Although the class action was not certified, the court held that there could be remedies on an individual basis for problems with the design of the physical equipment used with computers. Elvig v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 696 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Colo. 2010)] Did the Court get it right? Fully Explain. Hint: The Plaintiffs argued three points of law (1) a violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act in that Nintendo has engaged in "deceptive practices" by falsely representing that "the Wii Remote may safely and properly be used in an athletic, energetic, and enthusiastic manner"; (2) strict products liability in that at the safety strap "was not reasonably safe as designed" or because "adequate warnings or instructions were not provided"; and (3) common-law negligence, in that Nintendo negligently manufactured and designed the controller.
Nintendo's "Wii" video game system features games with simulation of tennis and boxing. To play the game, the players use a motion-sensitive controller in their hand. When playing the game, some players, in making the motions necessary for the sport, have lost control of their controllers The controllers have crashed into other objects, including televisions sets, and then injured the players. Players who have been so injured brought a class action suit against Nintendo for a defective wrist strap on the controllers, designed to keep the controllers from flying out of control. Although the class action was not certified, the court held that there could be remedies on an individual basis for problems with the design of the physical equipment used with computers. Elvig v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 696 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Colo. 2010)] Did the Court get it right? Fully Explain. Hint: The Plaintiffs argued three points of law (1) a violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act in that Nintendo has engaged in "deceptive practices" by falsely representing that "the Wii Remote may safely and properly be used in an athletic, energetic, and enthusiastic manner"; (2) strict products liability in that at the safety strap "was not reasonably safe as designed" or because "adequate warnings or instructions were not provided"; and (3) common-law negligence, in that Nintendo negligently manufactured and designed the controller.
Related questions
Question
Nintendo's "Wii" video game system features games with simulation of tennis and boxing. To play the game, the players use a motion-sensitive controller in their hand. When playing the game, some players, in making the motions necessary for the sport, have lost control of their controllers The controllers have crashed into other objects, including televisions sets, and then injured the players. Players who have been so injured brought a class action suit against Nintendo for a defective wrist strap on the controllers, designed to keep the controllers from flying out of control. Although the class action was not certified, the court held that there could be remedies on an individual basis for problems with the design of the physical equipment used with computers. Elvig v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 696 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Colo. 2010)]
Did the Court get it right? Fully Explain.
Hint: The Plaintiffs argued three points of law (1) a violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act in that Nintendo has engaged in "deceptive practices" by falsely representing that "the Wii Remote may safely and properly be used in an athletic, energetic, and enthusiastic manner"; (2) strict products liability in that at the safety strap "was not reasonably safe as designed" or because "adequate warnings or instructions were not provided"; and (3) common-law negligence, in that Nintendo negligently manufactured and designed the controller.
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
