If I were the owner of Acme company, my defense would be simple, “My rocket sled was never intended to be duct-taped to a live wolf. The sled for one, and others of our products have been used and abused beyond any reasonable reckoning! Wile E Coyote is a reckless thrill seeker who bears ultimate responsibility for his own injuries”.
Would my defense prevail? And remember, the jury will be able to watch replays, in slo mo, of all his crazy stunts. :;
IANAL, but I don’t think so. Coyote would have to prove that either a) there were flaws in how Acme’s products were manufactured, or b) the prducts did not perform as advertised, or c) the products malfunctioned when used as intended.
I don’t recall any of the various rockets or cannons exploding or failing to go off. And Acme could make a good case that they never intended their rockets to be attached to roller skates, or their rocket sled to be used anywhere but on rails, or their canon to be fired while unanchored to the ground.
I meant, of course, that Coyote would not have a case, not that Acme’s defense would not prevail.
Unlike Lizard, I seem to recall that some of ACME’s rockets would explode as soon as Wile E put flame to the wick, but I could be confusing my cartoons.
If we assume Wile E is suing in the US, ACME has some problems that your defense wouldn’t cover. Your defense will have a chance against the situation where Wile E cobbles together some contraption from a number of unrelated parts, as long as it is not reasonable to expect anyone to do that.
Your defense won’t prevail if he brings a failure to warn claim. For example, I’m not sure ACME bat wings warn that they can’t be used for flying of gliding. Your defense won’t work against desing defect claims, such as when the cannon slides off its base. And your defense won’t prevail against manufacturing defects, such as when a rocket explodes rather than taking off. ACME products have too many problems with them for one defense to fit all of the lawsuits ACME would face.
Wile E. might have some recourse, but he’s out of luck because Bugs Bunny is the claims adjuster.
I just find it funny that everything he uses to kill Road Runner happens to him instead, yet he does not die. Their final cartoon should be either Wile. E. finally eating the Road Runner, or one ofthe backfires finally killing him.
IIRC isn’t there a hint that Roadrunners own the ACME corp?
From here. 
Fabulous, donkey, just fabulous!
At least the Earthquake Pills had the standard “not effective on road runners” on it.
I figure that ACME is not liable for his accidents as its his own fault if he does not assemble the product correctly.
I would think ACME might bear some liability for manufacturing products that are simply hazardous to use. They may not be defective, they may word as advertised, but if they’re hazardous when used as intended, ACME has some responsibility to warn the user. Of cousre, it’s possible that there is a big warning included, and Mr. Coyote simply ignores it.
What about the ACME catapult?! That thing was deadly! No matter where you were, the catapult would always fire its projectile at the operator.
And of course, here is the Acme company’s [url-http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/coyote.htm]rebuttal.
I’d like to submit this piece of evidence:
It clearly states on the instruction sheet that comes with each Acme product that under NOcircumstances are such products to be used for the apprehension and consumption of road runners.
Yes, I will admit that warning is written in Madarin Chinese in a 10 century dialect and the ideograms are mirror-reversed from their usual depiction, but otherwise the warning is quite clear!
Check this out: Coyote v. Acme, a classic piece of humour by Ian Frazier from the New Yorker.
The entire situation just calls for a complete revision of the legislation on compensatory and punitive damages. As this article [url=…
Oh? We’re not in Great Debates?
Excuse me…
::: slinks out of thread :::
Beyond the traps and tools, I think the ACME company may have a problem defending its many drug sales. I recall several amphetamine and steroid-like products which must certainly be on the banned-substance list.
The problem is proving damages. Mr. Coyote has the dual advantage AND disadvantage of recovering so rapidly from what surely SHOULD be aggregious injuries. And there are never any third party witnesses who could attest to his reputed pain or suffering, which is where the big money is. Indeed, were there any independent witnesses to the accident, their testimony would surely implicate Mr. Coyote in an attempted murder charge of one Miss Road Runner. His ONLY witness is Miss Runner and I daresay she’d make a crappy witness:
Plaintiff’s Attorney: “Now, Ms. Runner, is it true that Mr. Coyote fell off a 200 foot cliff and landed in a twisted heap at the bottom of the canyon after being ejected from the Acme rocket launcher, which he had attempted to strap himself into with duct tape, which incidentally the manufacturer had NOT warned him against doing lest he risk serious injury or death?”
Witness: “Beep Beep.”
PA: “Now, Ms. Runner, would “Beep Beep” be a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?”
RR: “Beep Beep.”
And then you have the no small hurdle of explaining WHY Mr. Coyote was in possession of a WMD when it is undoubtedly illegal in his home state to possess such a device. (Presuming it’s not Texas, of course.)
Hmm, I always thought that the roadrunner was male, after all, the Coyote used a female looking decoy to lure the roadrunner and suffice to say the roadrunner was sufficiently ‘attracted’ to it…:dubious: