In modern society such as the United States, consumers expect products they purchase to be safe and dependable. However, that is not always the case with some products. Some business will do everything possible to ensure their product meet or exceed standard set by the company and governmental regulatory agencies. On the other hand, there are some businesses whose main objective is to make profits and will sometime disregard the safety of their product and sale it to the consumer anyway. Then, again there are some company who have the best intent when selling their product however, there are unintentional circumstance that may occur which lead to liability for the company.
Anytime a company sale a product and cause harm to the consumer they can be found to be liable. There are cases where companies face liability, even when there is was no “intent” implicated instead; the torts are considered unintentional (Seaquist & Coulter, 2012). These types of torts are known as torts of negligence, and are considered the most commonplace types of torts encountered by business executives and one of the most costly (Seaquist & Coulter, 2012).
According to Seaquist & Coulter (2012) liability may be levied on a defendant even if the defendant was not found to be negligence yet was engrossed in ultra-hazardous activities. Seaquist & Coulter (2012) states this is referred to as “absolute liability”. Seaquist & Coulter (2012) also mention a part of law called “product liability”, that represented a lawsuit based on service contract, negligence, and strict liability. Based on this model, a plaintiff can bring suit against the producers of the product for injuries occurred after the product malfunctions (Seaquist & Coulter, 2012).
It should be...
... middle of paper ...
...
References
Consumer Safety (2014). Gree Expands Dehumidifier Recall to Include GE Brand Dehumidifiers Due to Serious Fire and Burn Hazards Retrieved from www.cpsc.gov/index.html
Seaquist, G., & Coulter, K. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Spier, K. E. (2011). Product Safety, Buybacks, and the Post-sale Duty to Warn. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 27(3), 515-539.
Widman, A. (2010). Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law through a Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008. Yale Law & Policy Review, 29(1), 165-215.
Wright, R. W. (2007). The Principles of Product Liability. Review of Litigation, 27(1), 1067-1123
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of care to ensure their product is precisely produced with no danger of negligence.
In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.
Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2013). Business law: The
Tort law is it intentional or is it unintentional, how do you know? Tort law is “A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings this is to provide relief to those who suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others” (The Free Dictionary). The word tort is a french word meaning a wrong and a tort is classified as intentional or unintentional. Tort law is used for a party who is injured to bring a civil lawsuit against the defendant or wrong doer. The party who sues can receive a monetary reward for damages that occurred to the person who brought the civil lawsuit onto the wrong doer.
Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business - Text and Cases. In F. B. Cross, & R. L. Miller, The Legal Environment of Business - Text and Cases (pp. 57-63). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
In an ideal world, consumers and companies would equally share the burdens of product liability and consumer responsibility. However, in the real world, we must make tradeoffs between these two. How we do this will not only affect our legal environment, but our economic and social environments as well.
Sweeney, B, O'Reilly, J & Coleman, A 2013, Law in Commerce, 5th edition, Lexis Nexis, Australia.
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.
There are four elements in the tort of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, proximate cause and harm or damage that is attributed to the breach of duty. Negligence is the breach of duty to take care, wherein breach is considered on the basis of the standard of care required.
James G. Skakoon, W. J. King and Alan Sklar (2007). The Unwritten Laws of Business. /: Tantor Media.
... become all too rare in today’s leaders,” and went on to explain that unfortunately the trend of irresponsibility is introduced to us as children at a young age. It can begin with waivers which abdicate responsibility of the school or institution should one decide to have their child play sports (2013). Unfortunately it does not end there; more often than not we purchase goods and services which come with notices that limit the company’s liability if their product does not perform necessarily as intended. Sadly, with lawsuits such as Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaraunts, which awarded an undisclosed amount of money to the defendant due to the coffee being “too hot,” these types of limited liability notices, that most would call common sense, are going to become much more common. After all how is one supposed to know that the coffee is hot without the warning label?
- Unsafe products can be banned ( product faulty and can not be sold again) or recalled (all stock taken back repaired and then put on the shelves)
McAdams, T., Neslund, N. & Neslund, K., 2004, Law, Business and Society, 7th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
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.