A recent products liability case involved gas can use. There isn’t one single case being discussed, but several cases, all with the same defendant. This paper will explore the facts of the case and whether the final judgments should’ve been upheld. Also, this paper will discuss the ethical considerations in these cases. Blitz, USA was the number one gas can manufacturer in the U.S., headquartered in Oklahoma and controlling 75% of the gas can market (The tort bar burns on; A case study in modern robbery: Targeting the red plastic gas can, 2012). In 2012, Blitz filed for bankruptcy protection from lawsuits, putting 117 employees out of jobs. Blitz asserts that the bankruptcy was forced by a slew of lawsuits claiming that the Blitz gas cans exploded, causing injury and death, in some cases. Blitz was unable to combat all the claims, even with insurance. The cause of action in the lawsuits was that the Blitz plastic gas cans were …show more content…
If Blitz had acted ethically and kept the arrestors in its products, even though this would increase its costs, it would not have had such large legal or insurance costs and may still be in business today. Other corporations would be wise to consider these implications when making cost savings decisions. Blitz should have considered the impacts on society before initiating such a potentially dangerous cost savings measure. The likely impact to other corporations, specifically gas can manufacturers, is going to be more intense oversight as to how the gas cans are manufactured. Blitz could have avoided the cases of negligence by behaving in an ethical manner. In the other cases in which the gas cans exploded during normal uses, Blitz could have avoided future lawsuits by suspending its sales temporarily and issuing a recall, and redesigning the cans to be safer. This would have been ethical and sound business practice that would have allowed Blitz to continue its
Cases have been widely used in medical ethics and law. In both fields, numerous books and articles about cases have appeared, including book-length catalogs of cases. What I propose to do in this paper is to discuss whether environmental ethics should be case-based as in law and medicine.
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.
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
It was believed that it would be cheaper for PG&E to dispose of the chemicals illegally since the company officials were more concerned with the profits than about people's lives. The hiding of this critical information had tragic consequences for the people involved. PG&E must have realized that they were guilty since they settled the case for $330 million in private arbitration. All in all, it probably ended up costing PG&E more money than it would have if they had properly lined the water pools and taken care of things the correct way in the beginning.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).
There was once a very old man, who had a hammer nose. The old man had spent his last fifty-something years of heavy drinking along with his drunken friends. For the last five years he hadn’t had a drink. Not even a drop of any liquor. But why not?
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
It was clear that the governments in America would not issue a permit to Union Carbide plant under such circumstances, which lacked severe environmental standards and permitted slum dwellers to live near the plant and so on. Such actions were the ones that led to more deaths. Before the major gas leakage from the MCI unit on December 3, 1984, some people were killed because of phosgene gas leakage. However, no one took it seriously, despite the media report. One of the reasons that people ignore this was because people didnt know the potential danger of the chemical plant.
Based on the evaluation, all three engineers made an unethical decision to ignore the proper handling, regulations, and procedures of the hazardous wastes they were working with which put the welfare of the environment, general public, and co-workers at jeopardy and should, therefore, be held accountable and criminally responsible for their negligence in accordance to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
Slideshare (2004) Carlill v Carbolic smoke Ball Company [online] Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/VivekAnanda1/carbolic-smoke-ball-co [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
The establishment of the Subjective definition of recklessness was through the case of Cunningham. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas metre to steal money contained within the metre, leading to a gas leak which caused D’s mother in law to become seriously ill. The subjective definition was developed here as D had been reckless as he had realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Therefore, demonstrating the subjective definition that a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness they must ...
“The case of Carlill V carbolic Smokeball Company is considered a land mark in the English Law of contracts.”
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.
(Wong 2010). The law, in this case, defines a defect as "unreasonably dangerous to the user. " The extension of the product manufacturer liability in the recent years is perhaps the most outstanding changes were seen in the Anglo - American legal systems (McWilliams & Smith