Bul Product Liability

747 Words Apr 21st, 2015 3 Pages
Shalene Kolchek can sue Val Porter, a dealer who sells and sold the spa to Kolchek to recover Litisha’s injuries under the product liability for misrepresentation. She can also sue Great Lakes to recover Litisha’s injuries under the product liability based on negligence and strict product liability.
Based on misrepresentation, Val Porter gave Kolchek the manufacturer’s paperwork intending to induce Kolchek reliance on the manufacturer’s paperwork resulting in reckless disregard for the facts of the spa defects. Val Porter failed to explain any foreseeable injuries the spa may have caused. Great Lakes Spa failed to exercise “due care” to make the spa safe, resulting in the injury of Litisha’s finger. Based on Negligence, “due care” must
…show more content…
Both Great Lakes Spa and Val Porter may assert product misuse, comparative negligence and knowledgeable user as a defense. When making the jet holes for the spa, sticking an index finger inside the jet holes was never the intended purpose. If the defendant can prove that the use of the product was not a foreseeable risk, the courts will recognize “product misuse” as a defense. Another defense, comparative negligence may limit some of their liability by showing Litisha’s misuse of the product contributed to her injuries. In addition, Litisha’s mother, Kolchek is a knowledgeable user and has the responsibility to keep her child safe. Allowing her six year old daughter to walk around the spa on her own was irresponsible of Kolchek and should be held liable.

I found several arguments in regards to why we should not have strict liability or why it is important to our legal system. One writer coincides with strict utilitarian deterrence theorists. In order to maximize the well-being of society “criminals should be punished so as to diminish the number of future criminal acts, because each of these acts would be perceived as more costly by the criminal himself and other would be criminals if punishment is imposed” (Kelman p. 1514). He feels that it may seem harsh, but it appears to be the most effective way of reducing crime and promoting legal efficacy. If cases
Open Document