Product Liability Case

Question 14 5 out of 5 points Which of the following is not a rationale of strict product liability? Answer Selected Answer: Correct Answer: Manufacturers should not escape liability simply because they acted negligently as opposed to intentionally. Manufacturers should not escape liability simply because they acted negligently as opposed to intentionally.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

Product liability is a law where the manufacturer, supplier seller and others who produce and sell products to the public are responsible for the injuries that is caused by that product. When individuals are harmed by an unsafe product, they may have a cause of action against the persons who designed, manufactured, sold, or furnished that product

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).

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.

Product Liability Lawsuits – You have two years from the date of the injury to file a product liability lawsuit to hold the designer, manufacturer, distributor, seller, and any other parties responsible for your injuries.

In the second case with Liebeck v. McDonald’s the issue of negligence is presented. Prior to

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes liability for defective products on producers and suppliers. In 1985 the Council of the EC promoted a Directive on liability for defective products. The main objective of the Consumer Protection Act is to ensure the better protection of consumers and introduced the notion of strict liability for defective products into UK Law. Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was passed to give effect to this Directive that applies in English law and gives the consumer an additional right to make a claim. Under this Act, anyone who is injured by a defective product can sue the manufacturer irrespective of whether the manufacturer was negligent. Where any damage is caused by a defect in the product, any person who supplied the product will be liable if the buyer who suffered the damage requests the

Some of the problems arise from the intrinsic nature of product riskdecisions and also the perform of tort liability, whereas others couldderive from individuals’ cognitive limitations and inability tothink properly regarding equalisation risk and price. so it mightbe each incorrect and an oversimplification responsible all theills on the tort liability system. That system functions fairlywell for several forms of accidents, like personal motorvehicle accidents. However, tort liability falls short with respect to products. (Viscusi, 2012)

(3) Injury: You were injured as a result of the defective product. − In Doe’s case, when he called the recall center, he said that the Flashlight burned his hand, but he said that he has not sought medical attention, and has no medical record or picture to prove that the product caused him to be injured. His claim cannot just be based on oral statements with no solid proof.

Other types of warranties that might apply under statute or common law are the warranty of fitness for a purpose, this applies when a buyer buys merchandise on the seller's recommendation it is suitable for a specific use ("implied warranty of fitness," 2014 For example a customer is looking to buy a lawnmower that collect the cut grass as it mows. The seller person recommends a lawnmower and helps customer pick one out , then there is an implied warranty that the product can be used for that purpose and will work the way the customer need t it to. If you do rely on the seller's knowledge, this warranty exists whether or not the seller puts it in writing ("implied warranty of fitness," 2014).

The administration and enforcement need to consider the government's ability to enforce the warranty is essential to the effectiveness of any warranty. Some assurance must be that an adequate administration system for reporting defects exists or can be implemented. The adequacy depends on the nature and complexity of the item, location and proper use, storage time, distance of using activity from the source of the item, difficulty in detecting the existence of defects, and difficulty in tracing the responsibility for defects. Some items have trade warranties that are adequate. A contractor's charge for assumption of liability may be offset, or partially offset, by reducing the contract's

2011). The underlying question of these types of claims is whether or not the manufacturer or distributor tested the products for safety and quality of design (Moellenberg, 2011). One way World Wide Concepts can protect itself from product liability risk is by insurance. Many commercial general liability policies should have coverage for these types of practices and World Wide Concepts should form a team of insurance type counsel to be responsible for reviewing and maintaining existing policies. Today’s business environment also requires adequate and well-documented processes and procedures of research, development and testing of World Wide Concept Inc. products. Some things World Wide Concepts Inc. need to consider are the procedures that are in place to identify all health and safety concerns and has any foreseeable risks been tested as well. World Wide Products Inc. needs to consider their products that enter into the marketplace are populated with regulations, industry standards and customary practices (Moellenberg, 2011).

Product guarantee insurance comes into force when an insured has a defective product. This type of policy picks up the exposure not covered by a products liability policy, such as cover for any costs involved in the removal, repair or replacement of faulty/defective products or any consequential loss the customer experiences as a result of using the faulty/defective product. This policy may also pick up financial loss suffered third parties as a direct result of the failure of the product.

Product Liability - If a claim is brought against a company for their product harming a