CAN ANYONE HELP WITH THIS SCENARIO :( Ronald Metzgar placed his fifteen-month-old son, Matthew, awake and healthy, in his playpen. Ronald left the room for five minutes and on his return found Matthew lifeless. A toy block had lodged in the boy’s throat, causing him to choke to death. Ronald called 911, but efforts to revive Matthew were to no avail. There was no warning of a choking hazard on the box containing the block. Matthew’s parents hired an attorney and sued Playskool, Inc., the manufacturer of the block, alleging that the manufacturer had been negligent in failing to warn of the block’s hazard. Playskool filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the danger of a young child’s choking on a small block was obvious. Should Playskool’s request for summary judgment be granted? Think of an argument that would convince a judge there are issues of fact to be decided.

You can write the argument but I’ll list some stuff to help you write it out

•These warnings should be provided for the safety of people who buy their products because if they’re not, then the company should be held accountable for the deaths and or injuries.
This is because if they’re selling products without safety regards, they are selling dangerous products to people including children, which is Illegal.
The dad on the other hand did nothing illegal. He simply bought this product feeling safe to leave it with his child because there were no hazards or warnings of any kind, and BAM! It killed his child.
Therefore leaving the death of the child in the Companies hands.

•if their product does not contain a warning/hazard ( choking )of some sort, they’re technically saying that the child does not need to be supervised while being with that toy.
The dad felt no need to supervise the kid with the toy because there were no warning signs provided on it.
Therefore, leaving the safety in the playskool’s hands.

The dad did nothing wrong here. Since there were no warnings provided. As warnings are to warn those of danger who buy the product. Since no warning was clearly provided, then the safety of his child was not held towards him.

The company on the other hand, failed to do their job which was simply putting safety reguardes on children’s toys. Since that wasn’t provided, then that makes them (the greatest of the product without safety hazards) the killer of the baby.

- I’m sorry it’s so long and I tried but couldn’t think of anything else that would help defend the dad but I hope it helps you write your argumentative essay or whatever it is!

C- a hypothesis or d- an observation