Which of the following is NOT a legal defense to a claim of strict product liability?

• A. Plaintiff assumed the risk of using the product knowing that it was defective and dangerous.
• B. Plaintiff altered the product and the altered product caused plaintiff's injury.
• C. The product was state of the art when it was manufactured but has since then been upgraded for additional safety features.
• D. The statute of repose has not expired but the product's warranty expired four years before the injury.

Answer: (D)

In cases of strict product liability, a plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, but they must show that the product was defective and that the defect directly caused their injury. Legal defenses to strict product liability can include various factors that potentially mitigate the liability of the manufacturer or seller.

The assertion that "the statute of repose has not expired but the product's warranty expired four years before the injury" does not constitute a valid legal defense to a strict product liability claim. The statute of repose limits the time within which a plaintiff can bring a claim, but the expiration of a warranty is independent of the statute of repose and does not absolve the manufacturer of liability if the product is proven to be defectively designed or manufactured. Essentially, once a product is deemed defective and causes injury, the fact that a warranty has expired does not negate the manufacturer’s responsibility for that defect.

In contrast, the other options describe scenarios where defenses may apply. For example, if the plaintiff assumed the risk of using a defective product, this can be a valid defense against liability. Similarly, if the product was altered in a way that caused the injury, that alteration could potentially release the manufacturer from liability. Lastly, if a product was considered state of the art at the time of