LEG 500: Law And Ethics In The Business Environment

The large number of handlers in the process of manufacturing and packaging a product typically makes it difficult to prove when and how the manufacturer was negligent.

BUGusa Inc. knew about the defect but made a conscious decision not to “redesign” the product because it would cost too much money. Sally may have a successful case claiming intentional tort, negligence, design and manufacturing defect, causation and damages and strict liability.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

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

In Greenman V. Yuba Power, the plaintiff was injured while using a power tool called the Shopsmith that was given to him as a gift from his wife in 1955. In 1957, while using the tool, the piece of wood he had been working without difficulty suddenly flew out and struck him on the head causing injuries. Ten and a half months later, he gave the retailer and manufacturer written notice of the claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them both alleging such breaches and negligence. After a trial before the jury, the court ruled there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or breached an express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer

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.

If the rule applied is based on the risk utility analysis, the defendant may be liable for a design defect even if the product complied with all the existing levels of technological advances at the time the design was done. The plaintiff should then use evidence based on the risk-utility factors to establish a design defect and a prima facie case. The trial court must permit the jury to consider whether the risks of injury outweighed the utility of the product’s design so that it can be rendered defective.

My thought on the situation is that Steve has a right to call Billy out on his faults. He can complain that Billy has failed the statute or ordinance, which can prohibit the leasing of a structure that's not in compliance with local building codes. The building clearly is not safe for Steve to live in and should be fixed immediately because of such hazardous dwellings. He has the right to hold Billy responsible for his failing to fix the heater as well as his leg injury, because yet again Billy's property is not safe. Billy was made aware of the faulty stairs and the heater. The implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord who leases residential property to ensure that the premises are habitable-that is, in a condition that is safe and suitable for people to live in-at the beginning of a lease term and to maintain the premises in that condition for the lease's duration, which Billy has once again failed to do with the heater and the stairs. Steve has two options; he can surrender

Luke, an ABC employee, is currently working on a land development project consisting of building an adult entertainment store in a neighborhood where Luke’s brother, Owen, lives. Luke knows that Owen has been considering selling his home but that he is putting it off expecting the real estate market to improve in a few years, yet Luke knows that the project will cause the opposite effect.

We have all purchased a new consumer product with several labels, stickers, and product inserts containing warnings, disclaimers and oversimplified directions. The warnings can actually be humorous at times as illustrated in the following examples:

Product liability law is noteworthy given the variety of defects covered, i.e. defects in design, manufacture, or warning, as well as the variety of types of liability ranging from strict liability to breach of warranty, negligence, or the battery type. given that the different theories of product liability provide or allow different types of defenses as well as damages, plaintiffs have flexibility when determining how to proceed with a

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

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

[R] The first is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who enters the land of another without the consent of the owner. The only duty a landowner owes a trespasser is to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich.App. 1,4, 840 N.W.2d 401, 404 (2013). [R] The second status is a licensee. A licensee is a person, such as a social guest, that has the landowner’s permission to enter the land. Id. at 4, 840 N.W.2d at 404.The duty a landowner has to a licensee is to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers that the landowner is aware or should have awareness of, if the danger is not open or obvious. Id. at 5, 840 N.W. 2d at 404. “Social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit.” Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 592, 614 N.W.2d 88,91-92 (2000). [R]The last status of those entering the property of another is a business invitee. Because of the business context, the landowner has an additional duty that extends beyond that of the duty to a licensee. The landowner has an obligation to inspect the premises as to any dangers and, if

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.