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.
Liability for negligence is a civil matter. In liability negligence, the victim has to be able to prove that the defendant has legal obligations, and the obligations was breached, and that they have received foreseeable harm as a consequence of the negligence alleged. If the victim can prove that there was a breach of a legal obligation then he/she will be awarded damages based on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained.
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
First, a tort discussed in the Essentials of Business Law book is negligence. Failing to exercise reasonable care to protect others from risk or harm is considered negligence (Luizzo, 2016). Recently, due to the success of cases against negligent individuals and business, it has become a more common practice. For example, a person may now be more encouraged to sue a company due to an injury caused by a certain product. However, even when it’s not an
First, the employee had on his favor that a coworker supported his declaration that the safety maintenance procedures were not enough because the design of the safety guard lacked quality and did not worked properly. Furthermore, the coworker assured that other shop workers had informed their supervisor about the issue of the safety guard. However, David Donald, the company’s manager, explained that the foreman had a records of the maintenance of the machine and that the foreman assured the machine was in perfect conditions. The last fact to consider is that a health and safety report concluded and informed that the safety guard of the machine in question was poorly designed, which could potentially cause accidents to the
When determining the characteristics of the accused, under the totality of circumstances The Second Circuit analysis the accused individual experience, background, age, education and intelligence. Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1988). In Green, the court ruled Green’s confession as voluntary. Id. at 894. The court describes Green’s charter: a twenty-three-year-old who had familiarity with the criminal system, street-smart with above average intelligence. Id. at 902. Moreover, in Ortiz, the court ruled Ortiz’s confession was voluntary. Ortiz v. Kelly, 687 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.N.Y 1988). The court describes Ortiz characteristics as an adult familiar with the criminal system, had the capacity to reason, think, and be at his own will. Id. at 66. Therefore, Ortiz’s characteristics did not impair his confession. Id. However, the court in Lewis held that Lewis conviction for bank robbery might have been coerced into an involuntary confession. Lewis v. Henderson, 520 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1975). The court used the combination of Lewis’ s
Situations where one person is harmed or offended by another person it is then administer by tort law. Tort laws cover violations where the party intentionally harmed the other person, such as in a battery claim. Also, Tort laws address incidents where the party may be held liable even if they did not act deliberately, such as in negligence claims or strict liability claims. The liable party usually result in tort laws, paying the victim monetary damages to compensate for their losses.
Most of the states have adopted this doctrine nowadays. Most of the difficulties for the plaintiff associated with some other theories of the product liability is removed by the doctrine of strict liability . Strict liability that related to the product liability states that all parties in the chain of distribution would be equally liable for the sale of the defective products. Manufacturers, distributors or sellers must be responsible if the products are defective and even the plaintiffs suffer injuries. Strict liability relates to product liability does not require any evidences to prove that the person suffers any injuries because of that particular products, it only needs to prove that the action of the defendant causes the injuries. For strict liability that related to product liability, when the product is defective, the manufacturers or sellers must held. The doctrine of strict liability applies to seller and lessors who involved in the business sector. For example, if a subcomponent manufacturer produces a defective table and chair and sells it to the furniture manufacturer. The furniture manufacturer puts the defective table and chair in the new section. The distributor distributed the table and chair to a retailer. The retailer sells it to the customers. Unfortunately, the customer is injured. All the parties in the chain of distribution are
The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm that has occurred as a result of carelessness. Intentional harm is not covered by this particular area of law. For negligence to be proven, three elements must be met: it must be proven that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; that this duty of care was breached; and that damage or injury resulted because of this breach. Duty of care is established if it can be proven that the damage or injury suffered was reasonably foreseeable, and that there was a proximate relationship between the two parties where it is not unreasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant to not cause harm to the plaintiff. The main stipulation
Nevertheless, Justice Douglas put forward a famous dissent which argues that trees should be extended standing to sue in court. I believe that inanimate objects
A brief introduction to the cases established the defendant Drake Personnel Limited liable for the injuries sustained by labourer employee Michael Stephen Douglas whom was carrying our duties at Warman Industrial a specialist designer and manufacturer of slurry pumps. The employee was contracted to perform packing duties and the role of a general store person. Douglas was a holidaying resident from the United Kingdom and was employed by Drake Personnel in various companies performing
The tort of negligence. Defined as “where a person fails to take reasonable care, and as a result, injures another person” (Grey et al, 1998, pg 241). For an accusation of negligence to be successful, the plaintiff must be able to present the three elements of negligence. He must prove that the defendant owes him a duty of care, that the duty in question was breached, and that he suffered damages due to this.
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.
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.