Facts
The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.
In 2005, Toys R Us started to purchase a product called Banzai Falls In-Ground Pool Slide from a vendor in China and imported it into the United States for sale. The Banzai Falls In-Ground Pool Slide was made of a tent-like fabric with a rubber-coated sliding surface and was sold with an electric fan used to inflate it. The slide was intended to be installed adjacent to an in-ground swimming pool, so that a person using the slide may descend the slide ramp into the pool. Before the slide was imported into the United States, Bureau Veritas, an independent testing laboratory, was retained by Toys R Us to evaluate it. However, there was no indication that Toys R Us or the vendor in China requested that the slide be tested, or that the slide was tested, for compliance with 16 C.F.R. § 1207 (1978) (§ 1207), a Federal safety standard applicable to all swimming pool slides (Universalhub.com).
The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s jury found that Toys R Us was liable for wrongful death, negligence, and breach of warranty and awarded t...
... middle of paper ...
...s best attempts to put a value on Robin Aloe’s life, including the loss of her earnings as well as her companionship, guidance and support to the family. In addition, the punitive damages of $18 million will be the court’s attempt to encouraging Toys R Us and similar companies to avoid importing unreasonably dangerous toys in the future as well as to follow the necessary guidelines before selling those products in the US market. This will help to create business practices that will be favorable for both the consumers and manufacturers.
References: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1644384.html [Accessed 23 April, 2014]. http://www.universalhub.com/2013/michael-aleo-vs-slb-toys-usa-inc-and-others [Accessed 23 April, 2014]. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/466/466mass398/SJC11294_02_Appellants_Toys_R_Us_Reply_Brief.pdf [Accessed 23 April, 2014].
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
Pokemon Go Inquiry Should the creator of Pokemon Go be held liable for the injuries as a result of playing the game Pokemon Go is the top grossing game around the world. In the US there has been over 75 million downloads as a result, while playing Pokemon Go and there have been 1000 injuries a day in the US. This report is going to focus on the US. This report is going to tell you if the Pokemon Go company should be liable as a result of the injuries that have happened or if the Pokemon Go company shouldn’t be liable. The report has been weighing up the pros and cons if Pokemon should be liable or not.
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
Medical error occurs more than most people realize and when a doctor is found negligent the patient has the right to sue for compensation of their losses. Debates and issues arise when malpractice lawsuits are claimed. If a patient is filing for a medical malpractice case, the l...
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
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)
At Ten P.m on September 23, 2006, my mother Kelli Elizabeth Dicks was hit by a car on Route 146 southbound trying to cross the high speed lane. She was being picked up by a friend. Instead of taking the exit and coming to the other side of the highway, her ride suggested she run across the street. The impact of the car caused her to be thrown 87 feet away from the original impact zone and land in a grassy patch of land, her shoes stayed where she was hit. She was immediately rushed to Rhode Island Hospital where she was treated for serious injuries. When she arrived at the hospital she was rushed into the operating room for an emergency surgery. The amount of injuries she sustained were unbelievable. She broke 18 different bones, lacerated her liver and her spleen, ruptured her bladder, and she collapsed both lungs. When she went in for her emergency operation, and had her
Product liability is a legal liability method of manufacturers, producers, and retailers, so they are responsible when their products result in harms to consumers in the market. The product liability happens when manufacturers, producers, or retailers are inadvertent in creating products without using an appropriate design process and sold it to the market. Moreover, the products that are created by manufacturers may result in an injury as a result of the absence of warning labels of the correlated risk or inadequate direction. Ford Motor Company is one of the vast majorities of companies that are responsible for their product’s abuse as a result of product’s imperfection. What precautions are needed for Ford Company to be able to prevent product liability lawsuit? It is important for Ford Motor Company to create a safe product for their customers before publicly put it on the market.
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.
The defendants were Dr. Stotler along with Aetna, provider of professional liability insurance for Dr. Stotler, and the hospital along with Argonaut Insurance Co., the insurer of the hospital. The first court affirms the jury’s verdict and the defendants were found liable for the death of the infant.
In the contents of this case there are several management and safety issues and areas for improvement. One issue is Mattel, Inc.’s responsibility to its stakeholders; to its customers, to its stockholders, to its employees, and to its suppliers. The responsibility to Mattel’s customers is that of producing and selling safe products. Along with the recall on the lead coated toys there were also toys that contained small, but powerful magnets that if swallowed could attract each other and cause serious or fatal intestinal perforation or blockage. These defects were not discovered during the testing of the products. Before this incident occurred Mattel, Inc. was recognized by Forbes magazine as one of the 100 most trustworthy U.S. companies. Too this, Mattel did everything they could to assure that they were doing everything possible to handle and correct this problem. For Mattel’s stockholders, the company had to make sure that the image and reputation was saved and redeemed as soon as possible. With such a massive and extensive recall of potentially hazardous products, that was designed to be safe for children, the stock prices and e...
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.”
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
Mattel Corporation, known as the largest toy company in the world, is a publicly traded organization with a market capitalization of over $6.5 billion. Employing approximately 36,000 people worldwide in 43 countries, their products are well-known and sold in over 150 nations (Mattel.com). With such winning odds as mentioned, it is hard to imagine that a company readily known to children and adults across the globe would become even better known for the company that produced toys made with lead-based products. This assignment will discuss whether or not Mattel acted in an ethical and socially responsible manner in their decision to recall defective toys, what they perhaps could have done differently to avoid this issue, and the best way society can continue to protect children from potentially harmful toys.