In my personal opinion, I do not think that Woods can sue the convenience store because under the “theory of strict liability one who sells any product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the user is liable for resulting physical harm to the ultimate user of the product” (Gordon & Rees LLP, p. 17); but since the product was used over and over again it could not have been a deliberate known defective item. Maybe if it had broken after the first use but Wood and Goldfish used it again and again. I don’t think that Wood should or could name the convenience store in any part of the lawsuit. The store accepted the product on good faith from the peanut supplier. Now the peanut manufacturer did purchase the jars to place their peanuts in and in reality something during the filling of these jars could have accidently happened to cause the jar to break overtime but again the issue still is that it did not happen after the first use. Regardless of whether Wood chooses to sue the peanut manufacture or the manufacture of the jar I think a lawsuit claiming negligence will just look like an attempt to try to ensure a judgment in his favor and may or may not work. Since I am assuming that this is the only jar that broke causing injury this was not a mass malfunction on a manufacturer. With negligence; Woods will need to prove that the defendant did not act with reasonable care. Now if he decides to sue the peanut manufacturer he will need to prove that they did not use reasonable care in filling the jar with the peanuts. If the defendant is the jar manufacturer, Woods will need to prove that they did not use reasonable care in making or possibly packing the jars. When trying to recover damages under a theory of negligence, Woods will need to prove that the manufacturer owed him a duty and then prove that the manufacturer did not provide their duty. He may very well be able to prove both but then proving that the manufacturer was a fault for the actual injury and that a negligent act was committed and the suffering was caused by said negligence will be harder. The fact still remains that the jar broke after the lid was pushed down after several uses and there is no proof that Wood did not use too much pressure and cause the jar to break or that the jar was not cracked by