Vogel bought a cell phone made by WiFi Communications, Inc. Three months later, after recharging the battery through a power jack, Vogel picked up the phone only to have it ignite in his hand. Suffering severe burns, Vogel filed a suit against WiFi, alleging that a design defect in the cell phone weakened the connection between the power jack and the mother board causing the wiring to overheat and creating an unreasonable safety hazard. Could Vogel succeed on his strict product liability claim?

Yes, Vogel can succeed in his strict product liability claim if only he can meet requirements.

Explanation:

The WiFi product which was defective in design could have been reduced, corrected or avoided if there was an adoption of a more reasonable and better alternative design. That defect posed a forseeable risk of harm that came from the product and an omission of a reasonable alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.

Therefore, if Vogel must

succeed in the claim, he must show that the phone was defective when WiFi sold it; that WiFi just engaged in selling that product, and that the phone was unreasonably dangerous to a user because of its defect.

Also, Vogel must show that he incurred physical harm by use of the WiFi product and that the defect was the actual cause of the harm, and that the product was not actually changed from the time that WiFi sold it to the time of the injury.

If he can meet those requirements, he can succeed on the claim.

Foot-in-the-door  

Explanation:

Foot-in-the-door technique: In psychology, the term foot-in-the-door technique is referred to a phenomenon in which an individual initiate by agreeing for a small request and later on make the other person agree for a bigger request.

Example: In the question above, as a neighbor asks Shiloh to sign for a petition that supports a local politician (small request) and later on she is being asked to donate some amount (bigger request).