Law
A mother bought reusable snack bags from a company. The company uses an antibacterial agent called triclosan in its snack bags to help prevent mold from growing in the reusable bags. Triclosan is a known toxin that may, if used in a sufficient amount, weaken the immune system, especially when used in a moist environment, such as with reusable snack bags containing fruit or other damp foods. The mother who purchased the snack bags sued the company in federal court because she believed that the toxins in the company's snack bags caused her son to contract an illness due to his weakened immune system. At a trial without a jury, the judge, despite finding that the amount of triclosan used by the company in its snack bags was sufficient to cause the weakening of a child's immune system, held for the company because the plaintiff failed to prove that the boy would not have suffered from this particular illness unless his immune system had been weakened. In an unrelated action also filed against the company in the same federal court, a father sought damages from the company on behalf of his daughter, who contracted an illness after using the company's snack bags. During the trial, the father moved, on the basis of collateral estoppel, to prevent the company from contending that the amount of triclosan it used in its snack bags was insufficient to cause the weakening of a child's immune system.Can the court grant this motion?A. Yes, because offensive use of collateral estoppel is permitted.B. Yes, because the facts involved are related in time, space, origin, or motivation.C. No, because a jury did not render a final judgment on the merits.D. No, because the daughter was not a party in the prior case.
