Responsibility in The Legal Environment of Business

746 Words2 Pages

Under which theory or theories of product liability can Kolchek sue to recover for Litisha’s injuries? Could Kolchek sue Porter or Great Lakes? In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.” Would privity of contract be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes? Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “any person, who is injured by a product may bring a negligence suit even though he or she was not the one who actually purchased the product”. Therefore, no, priority of contract would not be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes because the buyer does not need to have to directly involved with the manufacture, as long as the product was made from the manufacture itself. For... ... middle of paper ... ...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on. People are not mind readers and people should be held accountable for their own actions. Works Cited 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. "Strict liability responsibilities." Law Teacher. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. .

Show More
Related

  • Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. in a Chicken Case

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.

    Read More

  • Main Line Pictures Vs. Kim Basinger

    864 Words  | 2 Pages

    In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.

    Read More

  • Iturralde V. Hilo Medical Center Summary

    1172 Words  | 3 Pages

    Without clarifying the instruction, it was suggested that if the behavior is not what a reasonable person would consider to be a “normal consequence” of the situation created by defendant's conduct, then said intervening act is a superseding cause. Consequently, it does not convey the relevant standard—whether the probability of harm is “sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it.” (Iturralde, 2013)

    Read More

  • Mamo V Surace Case Summary

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.

    Read More

  • Tort Case Study In Common Law

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Hot Coffee Documentary

    659 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Case Study: Susan Is Shopping In A Supermarket

    1666 Words  | 4 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Comparing Natural Law to Legal Realism in the case of Carlton versus Walkovsky

    896 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?

    Read More

  • Elements Of Negligence Memo

    677 Words  | 2 Pages

    Discussion and Analysis: The elements of negligence in this scenario are; although the manager of Foods, Inc. was unaware of

    Read More

  • Negligence Case Study

    935 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Storm In Progress Doctrine

    2441 Words  | 5 Pages

    Courts have largely not framed plaintiff’s knowledge in terms of either comparative negligence or assumption of risk. But it may be possible that Whole Foods could use these arguments as defenses. One Kansas court has recognized that comparative negligence is a valid defense in a slip and fall case. Hardesty v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 915 P.2d 41, 48–49 (Kan. 1996). Therefore, it is possible that Whole Foods could argue that our client is responsible for her own injuries because of her knowledge of the weather.

    Read More

  • Company Law

    2007 Words  | 5 Pages

    As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.

    Read More

  • The English Law on Vicarious Liability

    1126 Words  | 3 Pages

    Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [2] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [3] The Law of Torts. 9th edition.

    Read More

  • Strict Liability In Tort Liability

    1147 Words  | 3 Pages

    Most of the states have adopted this doctrine nowadays. Most of the difficulties for the plaintiff associated with some other theories of the product liability is removed by the doctrine of strict liability . Strict liability that related to the product liability states that all parties in the chain of distribution would be equally liable for the sale of the defective products. Manufacturers, distributors or sellers must be responsible if the products are defective and even the plaintiffs suffer injuries. Strict liability relates to product liability does not require any evidences to prove that the person suffers any injuries because of that particular products, it only needs to prove that the action of the defendant causes the injuries. For strict liability that related to product liability, when the product is defective, the manufacturers or sellers must held. The doctrine of strict liability applies to seller and lessors who involved in the business sector. For example, if a subcomponent manufacturer produces a defective table and chair and sells it to the furniture manufacturer. The furniture manufacturer puts the defective table and chair in the new section. The distributor distributed the table and chair to a retailer. The retailer sells it to the customers. Unfortunately, the customer is injured. All the parties in the chain of distribution are

    Read More

  • Roles And Functions Of Law In Business And Society

    897 Words  | 2 Pages

    Substantive and Procedural Law – Substantive laws are the social rights and duties of people, and procedural law are guidelines through which government bodies or courts deal with breaches in substantive law. E.g. substantive law would state that hitting someone with a car and driving off is a crime, while procedural law would define how the courts could try and sentence in the case.

    Read More

More about Responsibility in The Legal Environment of Business

Open Document