Daniel Boone versus Zoom Car Company

934 Words2 Pages

Legal Issues:
The Plaintiff, Daniel Boone has sued the defendant; Zoom Car Company for his medical expenses resulting from being dragged from his car and being beaten, when he drove to a high crime area because of a faulty compass. The plaintiff claimed that the reason for this attached was that the compass that was installed in the car he bought from Zoom was faulty and led him in the wrong direction where he got lost and ended up in awful situation that led to the beating. According to the case note, Zoom Car Company manufactures automobiles; the company installs additional extras and features in their automobiles. The feature in question was the onboard compass manufactured by Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rulers Inc. The Plaintiff had purchased a car from Zoom which unfortunately had a faulty compass installed in it. The claim here is that the faulty compass is responsible for what happened to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff could argue that Zoom Car Company should be responsible for his medical bills because what happened what a direct result of the faulty compass installed in the car he bought from Zoom. The plaintiff could claim that the defendant is liable under product liability consumer protection act. Product liability is the liability of manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products .The Tort principle allows an injured party to bring a civil lawsuit to seek compensation for damages caused by defective products. The plaintiff could prove that the fault with the compass was due the defendant’s negligence that Zoom Car Company did not properly design, test or assemble the compass and by so doing the defendant has breached a duty of care to the plaintiff. It...

... middle of paper ...

...duty of care to the public to test and make sure that the compass is in good working condition before selling the automobile to the public. Secondly, assuming the compass was in good working condition before the plaintiff bought the automobile, there is no way that could be proven in court. In my opinion based on this case, I strongly believe that the Zoom Car Company should be responsible for what happened to Daniel Boone considering the fact that the compass installed in the automobile he bought was faulty and he witnessed the unfortunate accident which could have been prevented assuming Zoom did their duly diligence when installing the compass.

Reference:
Cheeseman, H.R. (2007). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (Fifth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Open Document