Hwk 6

.docx

School

California Polytechnic State University, Pomona *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4050

Subject

Industrial Engineering

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderScience11534

Olivia Faye EGR 4050.06 State the professional duty of care of a professional electronics design engineer, then the specific professional standard of care Magoo and Bord must follow in designing the requested product. State the general duty of care for a corporation as to visitors on its premises and the specific standard of care relative to test areas and visitors. Professional Duty of Care for Electronics Design Engineers:  Engineers must design electronic systems to the highest industry standards, ensuring safety and functionality.  This duty surpasses government regulations and is based on a "reasonably prudent professional" expectation. Specific Standard of Care for Magoo and Bord:  Magoo and Bord, despite different preferred standards, must adhere to the highest industry safety standards while designing the TiVo-style recorder.  This includes risk assessment, component selection, design for foreseeable hazards, and proper testing protocols. General Duty of Care for Corporations:  Corporations owe a duty of care to visitors on their premises, ensuring their safety.  This duty involves reasonable measures to warn of hazards, maintain safe conditions, and provide adequate security. Specific Standard of Care for Test Areas and Visitors:  Test areas, where potentially hazardous prototypes are present, require even stricter precautions.  Clear signage, restricted access, trained personnel, and controlled environments are necessary to minimize risks to visitors. Determine, using facts and law, whether anyone breached a standard of care? Determine, using facts and law, whether any breach is the actual cause of any of Bupkiss’ injuries? Determine whether any breach is the proximate cause of any of Bupkiss’ injuries? Potential Breaches by Magoo and Bord:  Prioritizing efficiency over safety in the power supply design.  Disregarding the potential hazard of the exposed power supply.  Failure to implement adequate safety measures in the prototype.  Failure to foresee the risk of harm from the power supply. Potential Breaches by the Corporation:  Allowing unauthorized access to test areas.  Failing to provide adequate warnings or safety instructions.

 Inadequate supervision and training for personnel handling prototypes. Causation: Bupkis was injured by the exposed power supply in the prototype. This establishes causation. Proximate Cause: The engineers' design choices, coupled with the corporation's lack of safety measures, were foreseeable factors that directly contributed to Bupkis' injury. This establishes proximate cause. Determine using facts and law whether any defendant has any viable affirmative defense? The engineers might argue that the prototype was not intended for public use and therefore shouldn't be held to the same safety standards as finished products. The corporation might argue that Bupkis entered a restricted area without authorization and therefore assumed the risk of injury. Clearly state your conclusion who, if anyone is liable and in what percentage of total fault (100%)? Both Magoo and Bord are liable for professional negligence and product liability. Their design choices and failure to address foreseeable hazards directly contributed to Bupkis' injury. The Giant corporation is also liable for negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures in the test area. Their failure to warn of hazards and control access contributed to the risk of injury. Because of this I would assign damages to be paid 50% by both both parties

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help