Assume the following only for this Part. X sues only Y in X's product liability case. Neither X nor Y wishes to add Z as a party. Nor does Z wish to be a party in the case. X's case against Y proceeds to trial. The jury found there that at X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. On the basis of this finding, the Sycamore Supreme Court ruled that X could not recover, and the court entered judgment in favor of Y and against X. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal and is now final. Assume further that X now brings a product liability case against Z for injuries in the hang glider accident. Z's position is (first) that the issue, whether X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger, was determined against X in X's prior case against Y, and (second) that that determination is binding on X in X's subsequent case against Z. X's position is that he is free to relitigate in his case against Z the question whether X was in fact operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. What are the best arguments on both sides? Who should win? Why?
If X was operating the glider inproperly and agaisnt manufacturers saftery guidlines then he has no case agianst Z, and then as well Y should not be held respoinsoble as well. And if X went to court against Y and the court found in favour of Y because he was operating the glider in an open and obvious danger, and then tried to go to court against Z, the ruling against X in the case of X vs Y, will affect the ruling agianst X. X should be free to relitigate agianst Z, but if X was operating it to create and open and obvious danger than that will go against X's ruling and most likely the court will find in favout of Z.