Former Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court is known to be one of the “greatest judges and legal reformers in the history of common law”(Rodger Traynor: Teacher, Jurist, and Friend Pg. 5). Traynor’s made many contributions of tort law; the most significant contributions are strict liability (Chief Justice Traynor Pg.1).
Justice Traynor influential concurring opinion on the application of strict liability was substantial enough to create the rule of Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A. Restatement applies “special liability of seller of product physical harm to user or consumer: one sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject liability for physical
…show more content…
In the reading of Graham Law Review, discusses the transition from negligence to strict liability and how strict liability is a “superior alternative to negligence.” Strict liability is a better alternative than negligence because business enterprises should be “responsible for losses from products being distributed (Cited in Schwartz Law Review Pg.1 and Priest Law Review Pg2).”
The concurrence facilitated the expansion of tort liability to cover other injuries caused by manufacturers. In arguing that strict liability would provide desirable insurance (Escola Tort Story Pg.4). Traynor argues manufacture’s should be liable for strict scrutiny because the manufacturers usually have “deep pockets” than the consumers, which makes it difficult for the injured to prove the manufactures are liable for defects due to the
…show more content…
Ford Motor Co. that strict tort liability for the manufacturer set forth Greenman applied also to the retailer and that manufacturer duty to the consumer to see that the product was free from dangerous defect could not be delegated to authority dealer. In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., the plaintiff, Claus H. Henningsen, purchased a Plymouth automobile manufactured by, defendant Chrysler Corporation from defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Plaintiff’s wife, Helen Henningsen, was injured while driving and instituted suit against both defendants to recover damages on account of her injuries. The court ruled that an implied warranty of merchantability is chargeable to either an automobile manufacturer or a dealer extends to the purchasers of the car, members of family, and other person occupying the
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
In conclusion, Fletcher’s paradigm provides another way to look at liability. In this paradigm, he is more concerned with the case itself than if it brings social utility. Fletcher also looks at the actions and risks that both parties pose on one another and uses this to determine liability.
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.
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.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
(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
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
Strict liability is when a crime is committed but mens rea does not need to be proven, a person may be liable even if they are not at fault, or tried their best to be on the right side of the law. Starting off in the 1800, strict liability was established to improve safety in factories and businesses. Nowadays strict liability is mainly focused on Health and safety offences and driving offences. An offence is strict liable if it meets any of the following requirements; the crime is regulatory, not a severe crime or the offence is of a social concern, if the wording of the act indicates strict liability or the crime carries a minor penalty. If the crime is regulatory, then strict liability can be justified, from health and safety to pollution to the sale of damaged goods.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.