Introduction This article represents a strict liability case pitting Sandpiper footwear as the defendant and McDuff as the plaintiff. Sandpiper footwear is accused of failing to issue a warning on the dangers of driving with flip-flops (which is one of their primary products). The case originated from an incident where Jipsy (a customer) caused an accident when her car swerved off her line and collided head-on with McDuff’s. Consequently, Mc Duff suffered severe spinal cord injuries. The accident was caused when Jipsy’s flip-flops stuck under the accelerator pedal causing the car to accelerate at a high speed. From the incident, the flip-flops manufacturing company, Sandpiper Footwear, is deemed liable to McDuff for its failure to warn the users of its products (flip-flops) of the dangers caused when it is worn while driving. Here, I represent Sandpiper footwear in establishing that, the company is not liable under a strict liability clause for McDuff’s injuries. Argument Section 402A of the restatement of the Torts act defines cases where companies are liable under the strict liability clause (Jennings 431). One case where companies are liable under this clause is when they produce defective goods which ultimately cause damages or harm to users. Under this provision, Sandpiper footwear is an exception because the flip-flops worn at the time of the accident were not defective at the time of the accident. Here, the company cannot be said to be liable under this clause because the flip-flops were not defective at the time of purchase. This means that Sandpiper footwear exercised all possible care when making the flip-flops. Though section 402A requires that, companies warn their users of potential danger when using their product, the same section also stipulates that, for companies to be held liable for any dangers resulting from the use of their products, the products must be defective at the time of purchase (Jennings 431). Obviously, the danger posed by the flip-flops cannot be linked to any defect the product had at the time of the accident because there was none. The court should also understand that the accident might have not been caused by the product (flip-flops) in the first place. One reason for this assertion is the events that preceded the occurrence of the accident. It is documented that, before the accident occurred, Jipsy (the driver of the car) was receiving flirtatious signals from other drivers when she pulled over at a stop. Also, before she sped off, she wanted to impress her admirers. This trail of events shows that her state of mind was not as clear as it should have been because her motive to impress her admirers may have caused her to speed off faster than normal, thereby causing the accident. Here, the accident which caused Mc Duff’s injuries may have been caused by Jipsy’s poor driving skills and not the flip-flops. Also, from the evidence obtained, Jipsy had driven with the flip-flops from her home to the beach and finally to the intersection. Throughout the drive, there were no complaints registered regarding driving with flip-flops. It is therefore of no surprise that, the accident happened only after she noticed people were admiring her in her co