In his employment, Grinder operates a grinding wheel. To protect his eyes, he wears glasses, sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses," manufactured by Glassco. The glasses were sold with a warning label stating that they would protect only against small, flying objects. One day, the grinding wheel Grinder was using disintegrated and fragments of the stone wheel were thrown off with great force. One large fragment hit Grinder, knocking his safety glasses up onto his forehead. Another fragment then hit and injured his eye. Grinder brought an action against Glassco for the injury to his eye. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common-law rule pertaining to contributory negligence. In this action, will Grinder prevail? 
Yes, because the safety glasses were defective in that they did not protect him from the disintegrating wheel.  Yes, because the glasses were sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses."  No, because the glasses were not designed or sold for protection against the kind of hazard Grinder encountered.  No, if Grinder will be compensated under the workers' compensation law. 
Question: In his employment, Grinder operates a grinding wheel. To protect his eyes, he wears glasses, sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses," manufactured by Glassco. The glasses were sold with a warning label stating that they would protect only against small, flying objects. One day, the grinding wheel Grinder was using disintegrated and fragments of the stone wheel were thrown off with great force. One large fragment hit Grinder, knocking his safety glasses up onto his forehead. Another fragment then hit and injured his eye. Grinder brought an action against Glassco for the injury to his eye. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common-law rule pertaining to contributory negligence. In this action, will Grinder prevail? 
A. Yes, because the safety glasses were defective in that they did not protect him from the disintegrating wheel. 
B. Yes, because the glasses were sold under the trade name "Safety Glasses." 
C. No, because the glasses were not designed or sold for protection against the kind of hazard Grinder encountered. 
D. No, if Grinder will be compensated under the workers' compensation law. 
Answer: