Introduction In the case, Leesa Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries , a jury argued in favor of the plaintiff by awarding $12,526,890.70 compensation. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The following analysis evaluates the facts of the case to ascertain whether the judgment was fair. Case Issue According to the case files, Leesa Bunch, an eleven-year-old girl, was playing near an aboveground swimming pool owned by Joe Frank and his wife, Loretta when she decided to dive into the shallow pool. The consequence of the dive was a neck injury. This caused a quadriplegic accident that has made her permanently dependent on a diaphragm pacemaker and a breathing ventilator. The plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the corporations involved in manufacturing and selling the pool liners. The main defendants were Hoffinger, the manufacturer of the pool linings, and McMaster, the company that sold the liners to the Franks. According to Bunch, the companies made substandard products in terms of design and product qualities. Additionally, they failed to provide warnings of expected diving consequences to pool users. The plaintiff also cited that the involved companies breached their warranties and failed to respond appropriately to the accident. The plaintiff requested over sixteen million dollars, but the request was reduced to twelve million dollars after the court identified comparative fault from other non-defendants. The court held that an 11-year old could not evaluate the consequences of diving in an aboveboard swimming pool as stipulated by the defendants. Additionally, the court used witness accounts to demonstrate the effectiveness of warning signs in preventing similar accidents. The jury maintained that the presence of a strong and visible warning sign could have discouraged the plaintiff from diving into the pool. Frank also admitted that if Hoffinger’s linings could have had a warning of a neck injury, neither could he have allowed children to play near it, nor place a bench, which was used to support the dive. The Court of Appeal maintained that the jury did not make a mistake in their decision against the defendants. Facts In 1993, the plaintiff, Bunch was playing with her younger brother Eric, and friend, Tyler Breeding near Frank’s aboveboard swimming pool. The pool had been donated as a gift to the Franks between 1988 and 1990. However, its rotting pool liners had prompted Frank to purchase a new one from McMaster, one of the defendants in the case. McMaster was not the manufacturer but a waterworks supplier. Hoffinger was the manufacturer and was blamed for failing to compel consumers to erect warning signs despite knowing the effects of diving into the shallow pool. The manufacturer denied liability for consequences faced by the consumers. Additionally, the supplier argued that the depth of the pool was sufficient to discourage users from diving. The manufacturer maintained that its products had safety signs discouraging people from diving. Bunch’s experts revoked the argument by stating that effective signs required attention getters to attract attention, a statement of the main rule, and a description of consequences to attract the attention of the users. Most of the witnesses claimed