The Theories Of Law That Apply Strict Product Liability And Negligence

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

In first Place, I´m going to introduce some concepts about products liability law and products liability; which refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for any damage or harm caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts

A plaintiff in a civil cause of action must generally show three things to establish a strict liability offense. The first is that a defendant, which can be a person or a company, did something that was inherently dangerous and unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must then show that the inherently dangerous act caused something bad to happen to the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff must show they actually suffered harm as a result of their injury. If a plaintiff cannot show an actual harm, such as a physical injury, they may not be able to make their strict liability

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.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

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.

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.

I can’t show exactly where in the U.C.C. it says this, but that’s the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C. 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 plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, 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 UCC 2-314. Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v. Maxwell Shoe Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) Also, there’s a case that expounded upon this issue and told us that a baseball bat can’t crack when it’s used normally. Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1993). The information that can be clearly drawn from these cases is if someone buys a baseball bat, it must be in the condition that was represented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be in sufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from the party of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained. Also, as if those cases weren’t enough, the UCC 2-314 demands that goods must be in good condition when they are

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.

The court’s opinion reflected the argument that consumers are disadvantaged in product-liability actions under traditional negligence principles. Strict liability’s intent is to relieve the plaintiff’s burden of proving actual negligence.

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).

When something is negligence it is, “ The failure to exercise necessary care to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm” (2016, p57) An example might be negligence if a store owner was mopping the floor in his shop and someone slipped because the owner did not protect his customer from unreasonable risk of harm. In this example a cone, a wet floor sign, and a guy standing guard, would have stopped anyone from walking over the wet area. The term strict liability has to do with liability of someone even if no negligence was found. Someone suing for damages under strict liability, must only prove they were using a defective product, the harm was caused by the defective produce, and that defect caused the product to be very dangerous.(2016, p62) The difference between negligence and strict liability is that in strict liability a plaintiff does not have to prove gross negligence.

This particular case is about Buick motor being responsible for the defect wheel of the automobile it sold to the plaintiff MacPherson. The defendant Buick motor co is a manufacturer of automobiles. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer and the retail dealer resold it to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in the car it suddenly collapsed. He was thrown out the car and received serious in result. One of the wheels was made out of defective wood, which caused the frame to crumble into fragments. The defendant did not make the wood; it was brought from another manufacturer. There is evidence however that its defects could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, and that inspection was omitted. There is no claim that the defendant

I don’t think it is ethical for Mrs. Thompson to sue defendants for her injury. Because it’s not a manufacturer mistake rather it’s her own ignorant behavior to put her finger before reading the instruction carefully. No a generally known danger should not be a defense to a product liability. It should be a strict liability as a defense to a product liability lawsuit.

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.