Strict Liabilty

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

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.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

Judge Simons dissented on the case stating he felt consumer expectation had no place in personal injury litigation. His reasoning seemed to place absolute burden on a manufacturer in all cases. His reasoning’s stated “ordinary uses” and “intended and reasonably foreseeable” implied warranties. If this were the case it would be hard to determine the definition of “defective” and “reasonable” to provide a decision in other cases. Any other decisions that would arise in similar cases would ultimately place the burden on the manufacturer to prove there was no defectiveness and the product could be used in any sort of circumstances.

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story.The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2-314). No Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v.

Robert Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was employed as the general contractor to build a Kinney Shoe Store. Chuckrow employed Ralph Gough to perform the carpentry work on the store. The contract with Gough stipulated that he was to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, and other items necessary to complete the carpentry work. Gough’s employees erected 38 trusses at the job site. The next day, 32 of the trusses fell off the building. The reason for the trusses having fallen was unexplained, and evidence showed that it was not due to Chuckrow’s fault or a deficiency in the building plans. Chuckrow told Gough that he would pay him to reerect the trusses and continue work. When the job was complete, Chuckrow paid Gough the original contract price but refused to pay him for the additional cost of reerecting the trusses. Gough sued Chuckrow for this expense. Can Gough recover?

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Senco is liable to Larkin for strict liability because of the defect that SN325 nail gun double fired causing Larkin’s injuries. Even though Larkin did not purchased the nail gun Seco is still liable to any person how uses the nail gun including bystanders who may become injured due to the malfunction of the product. Seco did not do enough testing and research to realize that the nail gun can potentially double fire causing the nail gun to recoil and causing damages or injury to any person using it or bystanders. Strict liability is a “doctrine that makes manufactures, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the chain of distribution of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect, irrespective of fault” (Cheeseman

The court concluded they made a mistake in not ruling that the issue of personal injury must be determined under the Workers ' Compensation Act. The disposition on this issue eliminated the need to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence and other arguments relating to the amount of damages for personal injury and the fairness of the trial on that aspect of the case. It is somewhat unclear how Kerr-McGee determined that the federal regulation of nuclear energy prevents application of the workers ' compensation law for injuries on the job. The existence here of significant damage to Silkwood 's personal property in her apartment required the court to consider additional issues recognized in the appeal. In conclusion, the Workers ' Compensation Act applies only to

There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.

The role of a liability and what it means to the business as a whole is different for every business. What remains the same is the definition. A liability is a company’s legal debts or obligations that arise during the course of business operations and is recorded on the balance sheet. Liabilities can include many things to a business, such as, loans, accounts payable, mortgages, accrued expenses, etc. All the named liability accounts are just fancy for any money or service that is owed to another party. There are two types of liabilities, current liability and long term liability. Current liability is debt payable within one year and long-term liability is debt payable over more than a year. Current liability includes

The defendant’s argument is they shouldn’t be responsible for Daniel Boone’s incident because Corrigan Rulers were the ones who manufactured the compass and they should be held responsible for the cost of medical bills and for any other damages. Zoom Car Company believes it is a superseding event, “the defendant isn’t liable for injuries caused by such events for which he or she is not responsible” (108). Which would mean the company can only be held responsible for the faulty compass that was installed in the car not the actions that took place after the fact of where he ended up. It is also possible that Daniel didn’t know how to use the compass, which would result in him being held accountable under these circumstances. Nothing is certain on who is responsible for the compass to not work effectively. If there is sufficient proof of the compass not working when the car was purchased it will put them at fault. But if the plaintiff, Daniel Boone, somehow broke the compass after the purchase of the car then he could be held responsible for his actions and would therefore have to pay for his medical bills. “ For a seller to be held strictly liable, the product it sells must reach the consumer or user “without substantial change” in its condition (129).” If the company, Corrigan Rulers, can somehow prove that the compass was in perfect condition when delivered to Zoom Car Company they will no longer be held responsible for the medical bills.