Olympic Strict Product Liability Case

MEMORANDUM

To: XXXX

From: XXXX

Date: April 25, 2010

Subject:   DSMO Strict Product Liability Case

Purpose:
The purpose of this memo is to:
  1. State the facts of the case between Heather Heart (plaintiff) vs DMSO Unlimited (defendant).
  2. Decide on a theory of liability that is in the best interest of the plaintiff.
  3. Provide elements to the theory of liability.
  4. Provide an argument for the plaintiff based on the theory of liability.
  5. Provide an argument for the defendant based on the theory of liability.
  6. Indicate the actions the defendant should take to mitigate future risk.
  7. Identify steps the defendant should take to respond to customer complaints.

Facts:
The facts of the case are:
  1. The plaintiff was a Luger in the 2010 Olympics located in Canada where DSMO has no regulation.
  2. The plaintiff injured her hand during practice at the 2010 Olympics and she applied DMSO on the injured area to reduce the swelling.
  3. The plaintiff’s boyfriend Billy had brought some DSMO from the United States.
  4. The DMSO manufacturer is DMSO Unlimited.
  5. The DMSO package indicates its use on horses and provides instructions for horse application.
  6. The plaintiff wins the Gold medal after applying the DSMO.
  7. The plaintiff does not feel well for a couple weeks after taking the DMSO.
  8. DMSO is a natural anti-inflammatory substance derived from wood pulp that reduces swelling if the medical grade is 90-95% pure.
  9. DMSO that is less than a medical grade of 90-95% can cause toxic reactions due to the cadmium, lead and other toxic metal contaminants found in non-medical DMSO solvent.
  10. DMSO at a 90-95% medical-grade can cause skin irritation therefore should be diluted for better results.
  11. DSMO entry into the body can occur through the skin, inhalation, eyes, and ingestion.
  12. DMSO is capable of carrying substances on the skin surface into the body therefore the applied area... [continues]

Read full essay