"brandy austin used powdered infant formula manufactured by nestlé usa, inc., to feed her infant daughter. austin claimed that a can of the formula was contaminated with enterobacter sakazakii bacteria, causing severe injury to the infant. e bacteria can cause infections of the bloodstream and central nervous system"in particular, meningitis (inammation of the tissue surrounding the brain or spinal cord). austin led an action against nestlé in hennepin county district court in minnesota. nestlé argued for a change of venue because the alleged harm had occurred in south carolina. austin is a south carolina resident and had given birth to her daughter in that state. should the case be transferred to a south carolina venue? why or why not? "

The case should be on the venue where Austin bought the infected formula manufactured by Nestle USA Inc.

It doesn't affect if the baby was born in South Carolina: They cant say the alleged harm occur there just because the baby was born there. The harm occurred where Austin bought the formula by Nestle, if the formula was bought in Minnesota, South Carolina shouldn't be involved in this case just because Austin's residency.

The case shouldn't be transferred, the final verdict it should be determined by the laws of the state where the harm object (In this case the formula) was bought and consumed.

d. i assume the underlined word is "role." reformat if it isn't.

explanation:

role is closest to part because when replacing words, "playing a vital decision," "playing a vital activity," and "playing a vital dollar" don't make logical sense. the only meaningful choice is "playing a vital part."

this fits one of merriam-webster's definitions of role: "a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process."

answer; during stalin"s rule, many mothers told their children that he was the greatest thing to ever happen to russia;