Breach Of Warranty Case Study

As technology in automobiles continues to improve, the debate over driverless cars has become more frequent. A self-driving car is able to move and navigate on its own using sensors and programming technology without human control. Many people believe the development of driverless cars would be beneficial because they could reduce the risk of hitting another car. The sensors and navigation would be able to avoid accidents, while drivers usually get distracted and would be able to use their time leisurely in the car. A self-driving car may allow people to drive when unable to in the past, such as children and disabled persons, and can be more cost-effective due to cheaper insurance. However, self-driving cars could be extremely expensive and can easily malfunction and therefore not always reliable, while also decreasing the safety of pedestrians and children who may attempt to use the car without permission. With new technology and distractions, driver’s minds can easily wander and become preoccupied. Technology can easily malfunction, and something as small as my phone or a light bulb will glitch frequently. I often see cars stranded on the side of the road because the engine went out or broke down; imagine how catastrophic an accident could be if a sensor in the car went out. Driverless cars are not beneficial to society because while there are favorable aspects of a self-driving car, one can malfunction and add new risks to the road, as well as potentially hurting the

Right now self-driving cars and trucks are hitting the road and will soon be available to the general market . Major companies like Google, Tesla, Uber and Delphi are leading in autonomous cars industry. In the past few years, these companies have made great strides improving this technology. Addressing the concerns for this technology must be concluded before it reaches the general public. Given the current state of automobiles that don’t need drivers the American consumer needs to be mindful that moral decisions this technology is handling puts them at risk due to the fact that this is emerging technology, laws are being made that will shape this technology, and who is choosing who lives and who dies.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to delve into consumers' viewpoints on extended warranties. The topic will be further analyzed by studying the extended warranties offered by Future Shop and RadioShack. Then, a few consumer interviews will be presented

In her article “To Hit the Road, Driverless Cars Must Be Safe, Not Perfect,” Nidhi Kalra argues that because humans are untrustworthy when it comes to safe driving, we should adapt to driverless cars. She provides three premises to support her argument. First, she presents the data of deaths and injuries that were caused by human mistakes. Second, she points out that even though driverless cars may never reach perfection, they would never make miscalculations or mistakes that human drivers make all the time, such as drunk driving, drowsy driving, or driving with distraction. Third, she argues that driverless cars offer benefits such as bettering mobility and efficiency, reducing congestion costs and land use. With these primary premises, Kalra persuades that driverless cars should hit the road one day to reduce amounts of accidents that are likely made by human drivers.

A product liability suit may also be brought under a claim of breach of warranty. A manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or retailer of a defective product may be liable where the buyer relied upon an Express warranty, or an implied warranty of merchantability, or an implied warranty of Fitness for a particular purpose.

Similarly, the article “The Moral Challenges of Driverless Cars” explains how driverless cars will be a safer alternative. It explains how humans are more prone to cause an accident than the driverless cars. The article describes the processing behind the vehicles and some problems they face while making them along with how this will delay their production. It also clarifies how the cars will be able to make the decisions that will keep people safe instead of putting them in harm’s way. Finally, the article describes the ethical issues and automation in cars today. According to Kirkpatrick, the cars are equipped with software that determine what reaction to make in different situations that would take a human more time to make, therefore, avoiding an accident. As stated in this article, there is still much work to be done before the cars are actually ready to sell to the public.

The article, “The Promise of a Post-Driver Life” states, car accidents occur every day, leaving someone seriously injured about every seven-seconds and one dead about every fourteen minutes (Humas). Surprisingly, driverless vehicles are on the rise and people do not know how to react or what to think about them. While the number of accidents on the road has increased over the years. Driverless cars could be a solution to help to mend the problem and help eliminate driver errors. Some people believe we should have driverless vehicles while others say they would be too dangerous. Many people in the United States feel driverless cars can create a decrease in the number of accidents, create a better traffic flow, and create greater mobility for those who cannot drive, while others say it would be too hazardous with possible computer malfunctions, cyber attacks, and relying on algorithms to make ethical decisions.

Driverless cars merely shift liability from the driver to the manufacturer as every accident raises suspicion of a product defect. Faced with a new vein of product liability lawsuits, courts will apply the same principles they do now with semi-autonomous systems in airplanes and ships, but it won't be sufficient. For instance, so far courts haven't included software in manufacturing defect claims because nothing tangible is manufactured. The failure to warn issue is also problematic, because some embedded technology requires no operation but can malfunction if an owner modifies the vehicle.

Many great technological feats have been accomplished in the past few years, one of the most notable would be the creation of self-driving cars. Along with the topic of what can be done with this technology, there is also the topic of what should be done with the technology from an ethical standpoint. Self-driving cars while not perfected are worth their innumerous benefits, despite the current limitations and drawbacks. Every year there are numerous incidents where the driver is responsible for a crash or even death. A self-driving car could be the very solution necessary to solving the abundance of accidents that occur daily across the nation. There are different levels of automation ranging on the amount of the drivers control of the vehicles. This technology is already being implemented in creative and helpful ways, and has been successfully tested.

1. Nothing in this Agreement will reduce your statutory rights relating to faulty or misdescribed goods. For further information about your statutory rights contact your local authority Trading Standards Department or Citizens’ Advice Bureau.

Since the beginning of self-driving cars which first began in 1925 with the creation of the Houdina Radio Control; a car operated by two cars, a transmitter, and an antenna, to now - the futuristic dream of these autonomous cars have transformed into the reality of cars we see now. These cars are nothing short of the new technology advances that have occurred over the past decade. However, with these advances many question whether or not these cars are ready to be sold, due to the fatal accident that occurred May 2016 involving the autonomous Tesla and a white truck. Due to the Tesla not being able to detect the white tractor because of technological issues, the tesla failed to stop, and since the driver was not prepared to steer, it lead to the fatal collision eventually leading to the death of the tesla owner. With the increase of these cars on the road, from companies like BMW, Daimler, Ford, Apple, Uber, and Google, this poses a serious threat to not only the people operating this autonomous vehicle but also to the surrounding drivers. I believe that autonomous cars should not be put on the road, and that these cars are not beneficial to the population.

For product liability of the autonomous cars, a more workable approach involves placing liability on manufacturers for any unforeseen failures of the autonomous technology, while placing liability on “operators” for malfunctions that the operator is aware of due to the vehicle warning them that a failure may occur or that the vehicle needs to be checked. This approach is generally consistent with the current products liability regime regarding automobiles. In a scenario where an autonomous car is on autopilot and it is difficult to sue the driver/owner, then it may become a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle or a device that 's operating the vehicle. James Wliittle, assistant general counsel and chief claims counsel for the American Insurance Association asserts that, "We can foresee future legal changes or different facets of this. Product liability law is alive and well in the United States and has been for some time." According to a scenario in a recent Cèlent report, the full

Self-driving cars the pose a potential threat U.S. roads should not be allowed to be driven. In the article, it claimed that if you were to get in an accident while driving your self-driving car you would be responsible. Wait a minute, if you weren't driving you technically should not be responsible for the accident. In the article it made a statement about how the car would be “cheaper” but if the car is so advanced in technology it would be more expensive than cheaper. Another great concern is

Another problem plaguing self-driving cars is the concern about their safety. Safety is a big concern regarding the validity of self-driving cars. For self-driving cars to be categorized as a reasonable form of transportation, they must prove safe for the passengers. Everyone wants to feel safe when they are on the road, and if a self-driving car is not able to provide that sense of security, then they should not be on the road. In Tempe, Arizona, one of Uber’s self-driving Volvo SUV’s was involved in a crash that flipped the car (Lomas). These ‘cars’ are not suitable for the road if they do not the reaction time that a human has. Another incident occurred in Williston, Florida, however, in this case, the crash was fatal. This crash occurred when “a trailer made a left turn in front of the [self-driving] Tesla, and the car failed to apply the brakes.”(Vlasic). This was the first crash by a self-driving car that had turned fatal (Vlasic). In the case of the crash in Arizona, Uber “grounded” their fleet (Lomas). However, in the crash between the Tesla and the trailer, the response was different. One of the first things Tesla stated, was that the driver was a technology consultant and autonomous vehicle enthusiast, “as if a martyr for civic transportation.” (Rushkoff). For