Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Product liability negligence elements
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Product liability negligence elements
An unreasonably dangerous product is defined as “a product that is so defective that it is dangerous beyond the expectation of an ordinary consumer or a product for which a less dangerous alternative was feasible but the manufacturer failed to produce it.” (364) A screwdriver is not an unreasonably dangerous product because it has no hidden aspects that causes sudden danger. It contains no hidden chemicals, and it is not really considered a threat. The question to seriously consider in this case is whether or not a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacture and if the manufacturer failed to produce it. The plaintiffs are arguing that the screwdriver has a design defect because the company chose a plastic handle, …show more content…
Although using a screwdriver as a hammer is a foolish idea, it is not the most outlandish scenario or insane possibility to consider. In addition, even if they had made the product in mind for a reasonable and rational person, not everyone that comes into contact with a screwdriver is reasonable or rational. For example, teenagers and adults can be unreasonable and irrational at times. Thus, Luke’s use of the screwdriver is a foreseeable …show more content…
Even if the company failed in detecting the foreseeable misuse of the screwdriver as a hammer, they can argue the defense of comparative negligence. The company had created the screwdriver in a way that its sole use is to screw in screws. Luke had misused the product by using it as a hammer and because he misused the product, he suffered injuries. Thus, Luke is partially responsible for his injuries due to his own negligence. So under the defense of comparative negligence, the company will have to pay damages to Luke due to their failure in detecting foreseeable misuses, but the damages will be reduced because Luke had misused the product.
The initial thought is that there is no need to warn about using the screwdriver as a hammer since it is common sense that a screwdriver is only meant to drive in screws. However, the company should issue a product warning to only use a screwdriver as its intended and not in any other way in order to avoid injuries or
Stirling Bridge had been a thriving power tool business for over 100 years. The company had sold and distributed power tools and equipment all over the U.S., Europe, and third world countries. Recently one of Stirling Bridge’s top selling products, the Braveheart power tool line, came under attack when consumer agencies conducted research and found many consumers who purchased the power tools were experiencing significant harm and personal injury after use. Stirling Bridge (STIRLING BRIDGE) had identified potential safety concerns with their power tools and hired an independent research company to investigate why consumers were being injured using their power tools, well before the company came under the attack of public agencies.
Iturralde v. Hilo Medical Center (HMC) is a medical malpractice case brought about by a representative for the Estate of Arturo Iturralde. The plaintiff, Rosalind Iturralde, is suing both HMC and Dr. Ricketson individually and as a representative for Arturo Iturralde’s Estate. The Defendants are HMC, Medtronic Sofamor Danek and Robert Ricketson, M.D. This case was brought about as a result of gross negligence and malpractice on the parts of HMC and Dr. Ricketson. During spinal surgery on January 29, 2001, Dr. Ricketson implanted a portion of a stainless steel, surgical screwdriver shaft into the spine of Aurturo Iturralde. This screwdriver shaft was not intended or approved for human implantation. HMC staff failed to inventory the surgical
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.”
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
First let us define negligence. “Negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. The risk must be foreseeable, it must be such that a reasonable person performing the same activity would anticipate the risk (Miller, 2013).” For Myra’s claim of negligence to be proved her team must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Our defense will be based on Myra’s assumption of risk as a judge, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence.
Defendant must show that plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for their own safety which caused the damage. It is not necessary for plaintiff t...
The McIntyre vs. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States because of its contribution to the adoption of a system of modified comparative fault in Tennessee. Based on this system, a plaintiff may receive compensation for damages where his/her fault is less than the defendant’s fault. Notably, the recovery of damages by the plaintiff is lessened to reflect his/her extent of fault. In situations involving several tortfeasors, a plaintiff’s recovery of damages is valid so long as his/her fault is less than the total fault of all tortfeasors (“Comparative Fault & The Empty Chair”, n.d.). The lawsuit was determined on the basis of contributory negligence doctrine and comparative negligence. The application of these doctrines as fueled by the need to determine the essential difference in the fault or legal duty between a party or non-party and negligent tortfeasor.
OSHA regulations give full disclosure to employees about workplace hazards. Businesses that produce or import chemicals of any sort must review the dangers associated with these chemicals and have them labeled accordingly. They must also prepare material safety data sheets to go with any delivered chemicals. This will describe technical information as well as hazardous effects from exposure and the appropriate protective measures. Any employees wh...
Arrow Electronics is a distributor of electronic parts, including semiconductors and passive components. It was founded in 1935 and has reached number one position among electronics distributors by 1992. Arrow’s North American operations were headquartered in Melville, N.Y. Sales and marketing functions were divided among five operating groups. This case study focuses on the largest of Arrow’s groups, Arrow/Schweber (A/S).
For several tasks, it is available with drill bits which are quite helpful in screw driving and space mission applications. It is fitted with electrical motor that can drill a hole in the object by moving the bit in a rotating mode. It can work in a variable speed and easy to adjust in accordance to the requirements of the task and comfort of the skill worker. These days cordless drill accessories are used frequently than common drill accessories. The reason of using cordless drill accessories is that they contain battery fitted in the hand...
This picture, in my opinion, represents the excessive use of force to complete a simple task, or in other words, overkill. The mallet in the picture is an unnecessary tool in the process of breaking an egg, as it ultimately causes more damage than benefit. There is no indication of velocity in this picture, but due to the nature that it represented in, it seems like when the mallet finally crashes down it will end up shattering not just the egg, but the eggcup as well. However, I believe this is more than a picture of an egg about to get slammed by a hammer; it is a light-hearted metaphor to depict the nature of nuclear weapons.
The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LTCA 1995) broadly enacts the principle that covenants should be enforced only by, and against the persons who are the landlord and tenant for the time being. The purpose of this essay is to analyse the pre Act common law provisions of enforcing a covenant after an assignment alongside the post 1995 statutory regime, to gain an understanding of whether the statutory reform was necessary or not in giving more equality of bargaining power between the landlord and tenant. The pre LTCA 1995 common law rules were based on three basic principles. The first of these was privity of contract. This term described the relationship between the original contracting parties.
For example, a knife is an indispensable tool for cooking. Cutting ingredients into small pieces, making a cut into meat to make it taste good, or cutting into beautiful shapes to make the dish look good, people use knives in many ways. It makes life better. However, what if people do not know how to use it safely? Knifes can easily hurt you if you use them in the wrong way.
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