Essay on Investigating the possibility of Negligent Tort

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

Certain criteria should be considered when looking at a negligence case. Questions to be asked are; did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Did the defendant breach that duty? Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury? Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s injury (p.114, Miller)? The answer to all of these questions is yes when looking at this particular case. The defendant had a duty to report the chromium leaks to the people it could have affected. A breach of that duty occurred when the plaintiffs were not informed of the chemical in their water supply. The plaintiffs then suffered multiple injuries of various degrees because they were not informed of the chemical in their water. Because PG&E did not inform the people in the area, these injuries did occur.

ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARE EXAMPLES OF ____ TORTS THAT INVOLVE INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON'S BODY.

Arvo Lake, a retired seventy-one year old man, bought an air conditioner in May. The unit was installed and operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Unbeknownst to Lake, the unit contained a hole in the refrigeration system that allowed Freon, the coolant, to escape from the unit. By August, the unit had ceased cooling, and Lake's residence reached a temperature of at least 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat caused Lake to suffer from hyperthermia, which caused circulatory failure and then death. The executor of Lake's estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty.

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

Businesses could be held liable for negligent tort if their product injury, harms consumers or is falsely represented. Nonetheless, when the circumstances warrant, parties that are not guilty of negligence or an unintentional tort can still be subjected to compensations when their products injure customers (Seaquist, 2012) Recall Negligence is an unintentional tort wherein one party is injured result to some actions of another. There are certain factors that must be considered to determines whether a corporation acted negligently. The elements are the following: a breach of that duty, legal duty to use due care, a reasonable close causal connection between the breach and the plaintiffs resulting in injury, and the actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. This paper is going to discuss a negligent tort due to a company’s recall of its product. The company may be considered liable for negligence if there was no recall on their product and the product caused bodily harm to a consumer (Benjamin, 2015). Throughout the paper will discuss the reason of Toshiba recalling their laptop computer battery packs due to burn and because of its potential to catch fire on March 30, 2016 and the recall number is 16-131. If the company did not make the decision to recall their laptop computer battery could have been diligent. To prove the negligent tort the consumer must prove factors such duty to care and defenses of negligence (Seaquist, 2012).

According to FDA.gov 2009, the definition of recalls is, an action taken by a company to remove a product from shelves. There are three classes of recalls and two other types of recalls mentioned on FDA.gov. Class I recall involves a situation in which there is a probability that the use of or exposure to a product will cause adverse health effects or death. (FDA, 2009) Class II recall involves a situation in which use of or exposure to a product can cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health effects is remote. (FDA, 2009) Class III recall involves a situation in which use of or exposure to a product is not likely to cause adverse health consequences. (FDA, 2009) Market

Even though businesses do not like to recall its products, but when there is a safety problem involved a recall takes precedent over rather a company will lose money. Recalls are necessary to protect consumers from injuries, and to save lives. Recalls are beneficial to everyone when expedited effectively. From the act of negligence a company could publicly be exposed which could result in profit loss due to consumers being afraid or refuse to purchase the product, and the stock values could fall if the company is publicly traded. This can be very damaging for a business and could ultimately force the company to go out of business (Seaquist, 2012).

The Product safety Act will request the manufactured cease and decease tight away from making them. The court will issue large fines if the manufacture will not stop making the faulty products(www.cpsc.gov).The U.s Consumer product safety commission is in charge of protecting the public, because there has been thousands of lives loss because unsafely of products (www.cpsc.gov). Not only death and injury has been caused, it has also been property damage from consumer’s products. The CPSC has prided themselves on protecting consumers and families from safety issues(http://www.cpsc.gov/index.html). Many recalled are voluntary, but some are involuntary, but if any products are suspected to be dangerous of. The consumer commission protects thousand of consumer (Food, Drug and Consumer Product Act of 1972)

In early May 2014 , federal safety regulators said three independent investigations had come to the same conclusion about the lethal air bags: Long-term exposure to changes in temperature an moisture can make ammonium nitrate propellant dangerously powerful. “The science now clearly shows that these inflators can become unsafe over time, and faster when exposed to high humidity and high temperature fluctuations,”. The agency also expanded the recall to more than 60 million air bags—every one that doesn’t have the drying agent. The bags must be replaced by 2019. Tanaka has until the end of 2019 to prove that even the air bags with the drying agent are safe. On June 1, a Senate report noted that four carmakers are still selling new models with

Facts: General Motors (GM) recalled about 3 million worldwide of their small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which shuts off the engine while driving, thus preventing the airbags from inflating in case of an accident. General Motors paid compensation for 124 deaths, this fault had been know to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared.

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

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.

Product recalls have opened the company to numerous lawsuits from consumers that were hurt by the recalled products.