Product Liability Case Study: Francisco Garcia Of The Sacramento Kings

There are two major lawsuits which the main populace has defined as frivolous. One of those cases is the McDonald’s split coffee case. This is the case where the plaintiff spilled her coffee and was rumored to sue McDonald’s for 2.7 million dollars and win. The other’s case is the Pearson dry cleaning case where a man sued Chung Dry Cleaner’s 54 million dollars for losing his pants. The plaintiff won in the McDonald’s Case and the Plaintiff lost in the Dry clearance’s case. In this paper we are going to dissect each case by the facts, the law, the issues, the ethical issues, the defendants preventative

• They also mentioned the fear on the coloring of the ball into gray and impact of the same over the brand.

"Officials check balls as they go into the game, and if the ball doesn't feel perfect, they can throw it out," Daopoulos said. "There is always the possibility that balls can lose air due to the conditions."

1. Breach of an express warranty - An express warranty is a guarantee from the seller of a product that specifies the extent to which the quality or performance of the product is assured and states the conditions under which the product can be returned, replaced, or repaired. It is often given in the form of a specific, written "Warranty" document. However, a warranty may also arise by operation of law based upon the seller's description of the goods, and perhaps their source and quality, and any material deviation from that specification would violate the guarantee. For example, an advertisement describing a product is often full of express warranties; the product must substantially conform to what is advertised. Many advertisers insert disclaimers for this purpose (e.g., "actual color/mileage/results may vary", or "not shown actual size"). Commonly, written warranties will assure the buyer that an article is of good quality and against defects in "materials and workmanship." A warranty may also apply to services that

Question 13 0 out of 5 points Sam wants to sue a book publisher based on strict product liability in tort because he became ill after eating food he prepared based on a book containing information regarding herbs that were safe for consumption. Which of the following is the publisher's best defense? Answer Selected Answer: That the injury stemmed from food which is not considered subject to strict liability. Correct Answer: That the information contained in the book was not a good subject to strict liability.

The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game. (3 Goodell)

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.

The trial court must permit the jury in a product’s liability case to consider whether the risk of injury outweighed the utility of the product’s design so that it can be rendered defective. When the court prohibited the jury from performing the analysis and only being able to consider the sufficiency of the warning, the trial court excluded one of the two elements in a products liability action. The jury could have found the pool defective with no regard to the warning on the pool. The plaintiff could have also established the existence of the defect without having to show the existence of a safer, alternative design. Since the trial court did that the plaintiff was able to file an appeal and the Appellate Division reversed the ruling and remanded the matter for a new

The lacrosse ball is for adding a weight to the top of the mesh so the change can occur. These are the materials used for this experiment. There was a few reasons why the experiment was conducted like it was. One reason is that doing only one day or trial of testing would give insufficient data. The reason why is that nylon mesh would shrink after the first day and the data would be useless, that’s why 3 trials would be able to record and analyze multiple trials when the mesh would shrink overnight.

On the other hands, business will do what they can avoid profit loss; this could increase competition. Increase in sales from the

Liability for a warning defect falls to sellers if they have failed to provide adequate instructions

Damages: Just after two months of construction, the concrete floor cracked severely and broken down due to which the plant was shut down.

Product Liability: The area of civil law that holds manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and other parties who make a defective product available to the public responsible for resulting injuries.