Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strict product liability
Arguments against product liability
Product Liability Elements
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Strict product liability
Imagine using a product in good faith only to have it malfunction and cause an injury to you or someone in your family because of a defect. A perfectly normal everyday situation can turn into a nightmare in an instant without warning. Hopefully this situation never happens to you or anyone you love. But, if it does, the following information is important for you to know. What is Product Liability? Product liability is a situation in which a manufacturer is responsible for injuries that are sustained through the use of a defective product. Responsibility for defective products lies on any seller in a distribution chain. The law that dictates product liability dictates that all products meet the ordinary expectations of its consumers. Liability …show more content…
In a product liability case, that means that the plaintiff (the injured party) does not need to prove the product was defective, but rather the defendant needs to prove the injury occurred because the plaintiff was negligent in the use of the product and the injury was a direct result of that negligence. Strict Liability Strict liability is another situation that favors the plaintiff in product liability cases. If strict liability applies, the plaintiff only needs to prove that the product was defective, but does not need to prove the manufacturer was. When manufacturer fault is eliminated, it creates a “no-fault” situation, which allows the plaintiff to recover damages where he or she might not have been able to otherwise. Proving Fault in a Product Liability Case In most cases, to recover damages for an injury, you need to prove negligence or carelessness on another entity’s part. However, when dealing with product liability, that is not necessarily the case. When trying to recover damages for product liability via a strict liability case, the following conditions must all be
In order to prove a negligence case the plaintiff must prove four things: (1) duty - that the defendant owed
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.
In this case a purchaser of an electric clothes dryer brings a law suit against Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the dryer) and Sears (the seller of the dryer) for fire damages that caused the purchasers home and possessions to burn down. The purchaser sued Whirlpool for negligence in the manufacturing of the dryer, and Sears for breach of implied warranty for merchantability. The case then moved to trial, and Whirlpool and Sears both motioned for a directed verdict. The motion was granted to Whirlpool, but not to Sears.
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)
This act is applicable where damages were caused partly by the fault of both parties. The court has power to apportion damages only when fault occurred. Fault of defendant means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort. Fault of plaintiff means an act or omission which give rise to defence of contributory negligence.
In this age of endless lawsuits and litigation from everyone suing everyone else, one must ask the question “where does product liability end and consumer responsibility begin?” This question has been further complicated by occurrences that stretch to the most far-reaching ends of this spectrum, the spectrum ranging from strict product liability of the company to complete consumer responsibility. On the strict product liability of the company side, we have the cigarette industry where the CEOs of the largest cigarette companies denied that their product was liable for the cause of addiction. Almost all consumers know that the ingredient nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, due to extensive scientific testing and reports on this fact. What these CEO’s should have done was admit that they knew nicotine was addictive, and therefore made their product liable so as to give a fair warning to unknowing consumers. On the complete consumer responsibility side, we can examine the lawsuit where a man sued McDonald’s for over a million dollars because he spilled a cup of their coffee on his self and suffered burns. He claimed that McDonald’s was liable because there was not a warning on the lid that stated that the coffee was hot. In my opinion, this lawsuit should have never happened. The consumer is attempting to alleviate all of the responsibility from himself for spilling his coffee and pass it on to the producer of the product. Frivolous lawsuits such as this, as well as companies failing to consider the importance of product liability, have resulted in an increasing annual product liability bill. Last year alone $4 billion was spent on product liability lawsuits and settlements (McAdams, p.636). This staggering number suggests that maybe we need to reform our liability system. Ideally, we as a society would like to reach a happy medium between strict product liability of the company and complete consumer responsibility. If this occurred, lawsuits such as this would no longer drain our legal systems because an understanding would exist that the responsibility rests equally in both parties’ hands. However, that is an ideal situation, which rarely ever occurs in the real world. In the real world, tradeoffs must be made in order to reach equilibrium. These tradeoffs between strict product liability and consumer responsibility will be discussed in light of the situati...
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.
When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.
A claimant's pure economic loss essentially results from a defendant's negligence and a claimant can only make a claim of negligence if primarily
The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s jury found that Toys R Us was liable for wrongful death, negligence, and breach of warranty and awarded t...
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
Strict liability is distinct from liability due to negligence as under strict liability individuals may be imprisoned even if they take all possible precautions to act reasonably unlike in case of negligence. Thus, strict liability promotes high standards of care to avoid such conduct thereby protecting the public from dangerous or prohibited practices. 2. Promoting Greater Enforcement of the Law Strict liability does away with the requirement of proof of intent or negligence on the part of the offender. Thus, it eases the burden on the prosecution to prove mental culpability in terms of intent or negligence in difficult cases.
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to act reasonably, that the defendant failed to fulfill that obligation, that the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered some sort of injury. In order to prove that the defendant was negligent and therefore liable for their injuries, the plaintiff must prove all of the elements which are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. For instance, one of the elements is damages, meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable. So even if you can prove that the defendant indeed acted negligently, you may not collect damages if you didn't suffer any injuries. The law will not hold a defendant liable for every injury to the plaintiff but only for those injuries that are proven and directly related to a breach of a
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...
A hazard is a potential damage, adverse health or harm that may effects something or someone at any conditions. Other than that, the risk may be high or low, that somebody could be harmed depending on the hazards. Risk assessment is a practice that helps to improve higher quality of the develop process and manufacturing process. It is also a step to examine the failure modes of the product in order to achieve higher standard of safety and product reliability. Unfortunately, it is common that a product safety risk assessments are not undertaken, or not carried out effectively by manufacturer. Mostly an unsafe and unreliable product was produced and launched on to the market. Thus, the safety problems are mostly identified after an accident happened or after manufacturing problems arisen. In order to prevent risk, a person should take enough precautions or should do more to prevent them because as a user should be protected from harm that usually caused by a failure for whom did not take reasonable control measures.