With the upcoming release of Coyote v Acme, cinema audiences will finally see Wile E. Coyote take legal action against the company whose products have spent decades exploding, malfunctioning and leaving him at the bottom of a canyon. But if the case came before a Scottish court, would he have a claim?
For generations, Looney Tunes fans have watched Wile E. Coyote purchase an endless stream of products from the Acme Corporation in his relentless pursuit of the Road Runner.
Rocket skates explode.
Parachutes fail to open.
Catapults misfire.
Bridges collapse.
And, more often than not, Wile E. ends up severely injured while the Road Runner escapes unharmed.
The premise of the new film sees Wile E. finally deciding enough is enough and taking Acme to court over its seemingly endless catalogue of defective products.
While the story is played for laughs, it raises an interesting legal question:
If Wile E. Coyote lived in Scotland, could he actually sue Acme?
Product Liability: A Strong Starting Point
On the face of it, Wile E.’s case looks surprisingly strong.
Many Acme products appear to suffer catastrophic failures during the very purpose for which they were purchased.
Whether it is a rocket failing to stop, a spring-loaded device launching him into a cliff face, or a parachute refusing to deploy, the pattern suggests something more than simple bad luck.
Under product liability legislation, manufacturers can be held responsible where defective products cause injury or damage.
A claimant does not necessarily need to prove negligence. The focus is often on whether the product was defective and whether that defect caused the injury.
Given the apparent frequency of product failures, Acme’s legal team may have some difficult questions to answer.
But What About User Error?
Every good defence lawyer would point out one obvious issue.
Wile E. Coyote’s decision-making is not always exemplary.
Launching himself from cliffs, strapping fireworks to his body and testing experimental equipment at high speed could all give rise to arguments about contributory negligence.
A court might reasonably ask:
- Were the products being used as intended?
- Were safety instructions followed?
- Did the user take reasonable care for their own safety?
If the answer to those questions was “no”, any damages might be reduced accordingly.
That said, it is difficult to ignore a product failure rate that appears to approach 100%.
The Workplace Accident Angle
An even more interesting question is whether Wile E. is actually working.
For decades he has devoted enormous time, effort and resources to the pursuit of a single objective: capturing the Road Runner.
If that pursuit was being carried out in the course of employment, additional duties could arise.
Employers have obligations to provide safe systems of work and suitable equipment.
A worker repeatedly receiving crushing injuries, burns, explosions and falls from height would likely trigger a few health and safety concerns.
At the very least, one suspects the risk assessments may require significant revision.
And What About the Road Traffic Claims?
The Looney Tunes archive also contains a remarkable number of incidents involving vehicles.
Rocket-powered cars, runaway carts, collisions with trains and a variety of high-speed transport devices feature regularly.
If an Acme product caused a road traffic collision, questions could arise not only about the actions of the driver but also about the design, manufacture and maintenance of the product itself.
Modern litigation increasingly involves allegations that defects in vehicles or vehicle components contributed to accidents.
The same principles could, at least in theory, apply to a malfunctioning Acme invention.
Could Acme Defend the Claim?
Any large corporation facing a claim of this scale would undoubtedly explore possible defences.
Acme might argue that:
- The products were used incorrectly.
- The warnings were ignored.
- The injuries resulted from Wile E.’s own actions.
- The products were never intended to be used in pursuit of an exceptionally fast bird.
The company may also point to the fact that Wile E. continued purchasing Acme products despite decades of evidence suggesting they were unlikely to perform as advertised.
Whether that amounts to assumption of risk or simply extraordinary optimism would be a matter for the court.
The Verdict
While Coyote v Acme is, of course, a comedy, the basic premise rests on a genuinely recognisable legal concept.
Manufacturers can be held responsible when defective products cause injury.
Equally, claimants must take reasonable care for their own safety.
The reality is that any Scottish court hearing Wile E. Coyote’s case would probably be faced with a fascinating combination of product liability, personal injury, workplace safety and perhaps even road traffic law.
One thing is certain.
After decades of explosions, falling anvils, defective rocket skates and collapsing tunnels, Acme would have a very large inventory of productions.
Coyote v Acme is scheduled for theatrical release on 28 August 2026 and follows Wile E. Coyote’s legal action against Acme Corporation over its defective products. [coyotevsacme.com], [imdb.com]
How Jackson Boyd Can Help
Our specialist personal injury lawyers represent clients across Scotland in road traffic accident, employer liability and public liability claims. Learn more about our Personal Injury Services.
