Oven Products Company makes microwave ovens. Pico discovers that his Oven Products oven is defective and sues the maker for product liability based on strict liability. To win, Pico must show that:

A. Oven Products sold the oven to Pico.
B. Pico knew and appreciated the risk caused by the defect.
C. Pico suffered an injury caused by the defect.
D. The "defect" was a commonly known danger.

In a product liability case based on strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered an injury and that this damage resulted directly from a defective product. Knowing or appreciating the risk caused by the defect or whether the defect was a commonly known danger is irrelevant to a strict liability claim. Option c.

Explanation:

To succeed in a product liability case based on strict liability, Pico must prove that he suffered an injury and that this injury was directly caused by a defect in the product. Therefore, the correct option is C: Pico suffered an injury caused by the defect. While it is important to establish that Oven Products sold the oven to Pico, the primary issue in a strict liability case is the causation of harm due to a product’s defect. The knowledge and appreciation of the risk caused by the defect (Option B) or whether the defect was a commonly known danger (Option D) are irrelevant to a strict liability claim as the focus is on the defective product causing harm, irrespective of the user's knowledge.

Learn more about Product Liability here:

https://brainly.com/question/30805836

#SPJ11