Amber Pretty Exercise Essay

53 Cal. 4th 335; 266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,765

Other causes of actions in the personal injury complaint - which is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstance. Another cause of action is strict product liability, which is that strict product liability is a legal rule where the distributor or manufacturer of a defective product is liable to a person injured by that product regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened. Another cause of action is design defect which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Another cause of action is failure to warn which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or distributor.

2. In addition, under the rules of UCC § 2-315, (Fitness for Particular Purpose) any cooperation or business that violated an implied warranty of fitness shall be responsible for: At the time of contracting knows a buyer’s particular use (and the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise or judgment in choosing the product) then an ‘implied warranty of fitness has been created.

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

If the rule applied is based on the risk utility analysis, the defendant may be liable for a design defect even if the product complied with all the existing levels of technological advances at the time the design was done. The plaintiff should then use evidence based on the risk-utility factors to establish a design defect and a prima facie case. The trial court must permit the jury to consider whether the risks of injury outweighed the utility of the product’s design so that it can be rendered defective.

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

The Wrong Act 1958 is a law most closely related to people 's daily life, that means it is a legislation dedicated to set lawful regulation when someone in Victoria suffers from injuries of kind, he or she shall be lawfully compensated for his injury that may related to financial losses. After hundreds of years of development, Anglo-American tort law has formed a very sound legal system with negligent torts occupies a very important position in Anglo-American tort law. Negligence infringement is the core areas of The Wrong Act 1958 as well as the main forms of infringement.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

The definition of goods is given as any tangible moveable items. Shoppers are now guaranteed a full refund up to 30 days after the purchase of the defective product. This demand for a full refund with a fixed time limit provides better protection for consumers as the duration was previously unclear and legitimate claims could be rejected by businesses due to prior legislation only providing refunds if within a reasonable time. This time limit is provided for under Section 22(3) which gives the consumer the right to reject the goods. After 30 days, retailers will be given one opportunity to repair or replace the defective product and this is dependent on the customer.

I will not find myself liable under this section because I can prove that I was not acting with scienter. I act with good faith even though I fail to investigate closer the irregularities and also because I wasn’t able to discover the overstatement in the net sale and the profit. I had not information that the information I was certifying was not correct. In the section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. I do not find myself liable because one again I did not act with scienter which is in this section is acting with a reckless misconduct. Negligence is not enough even in this section to prove it as scienter. As in the case of Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, Ernst & Ernst was the auditor of First Securities, Hochfelder sue Ernst & Ernst because he and the others investors find out that the president of First Securities was committing fraud with their money. Ernst & Ernst fail to check the mail of the First Security president because he orders anyone to be able to check. When this case when to court the judge did not comply with this was a matter if this section and rule because Ernst & Ernst did not act with scienter. Aiding and Abetting, in this I find myself also not liable because I didn’t know about the false statement and also I didn’t reckless assisted them on the other person violation also I was not subrationally assistance the other

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.