The rapid industrialization and urbanization had inevitably led to rampant unfair trade practices, most notably fraudulent misrepresentation as to the quality and standard of goods . Accordingly, product liability law had been enacted to raise the standard of goods manufactured and supplied to the consumers, by enabling the consumers to make a defective product liability claim (for compensation) if they suffer any injuries or damages as a result of the product used. In Malaysia, the law concerning liability in defective product is provided for under PART X of Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA), which modeled on European Community Directive on Liability for Defective Product 1985 (85/374/EEC) , with further modifications. A product is said to be defective if the safety of the product is not such as a person is generally entitled to expect . A defect could be either in the form of design defect , manufactured defect or instructional defect . The persons who shall be liable for any damage caused either wholly or partly by a defect in a product is held out by Section 68(1) of CPA as follows: (a) producer of the product; (b) the person who, by putting his name or trade mark on the product, has …show more content…
The product liability law in Malaysia is now entering into a new era with the recent introduction in CPA. The Part X of the Act introduces a new system of liability in respect of loss or damage and it is prescribes the product liability in detail and explain in which circumstances that the manufacturer or seller could be sued for compensation. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of any claim not more than RM 25,000.00 filed within 3 years of the
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) was established to protect consumers in any legal trading activities in Australia. A set of guarantees has also been introduced for those consumers who are acquiring goods and services from Australian suppliers, importers or manufacturers. The guarantees are intended to ensure that consumers will receive the goods or services they have paid for. If they have problems with the products and services they bought, they are entitled for remedies, such as repair, replacement, and refund.
A police officer, Colin Allcars (Allcars), is suing Harry’s Ammo World (HAW) for his medical expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering. HAW sold a rifle to Dakota D. West without checking West’s background for felonies or drug use. Federal law prevents the sale of firearms to anyone with a felony or to anyone that uses illegal drugs. Dakota had been convicted of a felony and was also a user of marijuana. Two months after the sale Dakota’s brother took the rifle and took hostages. When the police were trying to subdue and arrest Dakota’s brother he shot and wounded Colin AllCars. Allcars is suing HAW on the grounds of negligence.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
The Massachusetts Lemon Law, M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 7N1/2, protects consumers who have serious defects in their new cars. The law defines a lemon as a new motor vehicle that has a defect that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of the vehicle, and which has not been repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. If a substantial defect still exists or recurs after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the consumer has the right to a refund or a replacement vehicle. Keep in mind that not all car problems are serious enough to qualify under the Lemon Law.
In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.
In this age of endless lawsuits and litigation from everyone suing everyone else, one must ask the question “where does product liability end and consumer responsibility begin?” This question has been further complicated by occurrences that stretch to the most far-reaching ends of this spectrum, the spectrum ranging from strict product liability of the company to complete consumer responsibility. On the strict product liability of the company side, we have the cigarette industry where the CEOs of the largest cigarette companies denied that their product was liable for the cause of addiction. Almost all consumers know that the ingredient nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, due to extensive scientific testing and reports on this fact. What these CEO’s should have done was admit that they knew nicotine was addictive, and therefore made their product liable so as to give a fair warning to unknowing consumers. On the complete consumer responsibility side, we can examine the lawsuit where a man sued McDonald’s for over a million dollars because he spilled a cup of their coffee on his self and suffered burns. He claimed that McDonald’s was liable because there was not a warning on the lid that stated that the coffee was hot. In my opinion, this lawsuit should have never happened. The consumer is attempting to alleviate all of the responsibility from himself for spilling his coffee and pass it on to the producer of the product. Frivolous lawsuits such as this, as well as companies failing to consider the importance of product liability, have resulted in an increasing annual product liability bill. Last year alone $4 billion was spent on product liability lawsuits and settlements (McAdams, p.636). This staggering number suggests that maybe we need to reform our liability system. Ideally, we as a society would like to reach a happy medium between strict product liability of the company and complete consumer responsibility. If this occurred, lawsuits such as this would no longer drain our legal systems because an understanding would exist that the responsibility rests equally in both parties’ hands. However, that is an ideal situation, which rarely ever occurs in the real world. In the real world, tradeoffs must be made in order to reach equilibrium. These tradeoffs between strict product liability and consumer responsibility will be discussed in light of the situati...
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.
Notably, the class of potential defendants in a product liability is extensive; it may include everyone in the distribution chain of the product (Wong 2010). The defendant may range from the manufacturer of the product to the seller or the lessor of the product. In addition, anyone who services the product or installs the product after purchase may stand liable in the event that the product is defective. Principally, the basis of action in a product liability litigation are the negligence, intent, strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and general misrepresentation (Wong 2010). In practice, prosecutions in product liability have significantly relied on the Third Restatement of Torts, on section 402A
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
The Consumer Product Safety Act states that any company that receives numerous complaints about a products defects must report these claims to the CPSA. According to the CPSA reporting responsibilities belong to manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of consumer products. Each is required to notify the Commission if it obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to comply with a consumer product safety standard or banning regulation. Also if the product contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury, or death to the consumer.
allow a remedy in a particular case as it would open the doors to many