Straight Product Liability Case Study

Strict liability strikes a good balance between the regulatory offences and the principle that the morally blameworthy may be punished by having to prove that the prohibited act was done beyond a reasonable doubt. Negligence is presumed, unless the defence establishes a defence of

The reasonable man-standard is used in law to determine negligence. “A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant’s conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows, has experienced, or has perceived” (“Standards”). In this case, the jury decided that the defendant knew about the problem but failed to act as a reasonable man, causing Hardy’s injury. GM did not intend to purposely cause Hardy harm but the company was held liable for neglecting the door latch recall.

While employed at the Hershey Chocolate USA, Turners claims have been essential accommodation on defendant. In this case the looking the material facts in the light most favorable to the Turner, it is difficult to conclude the material of the law, based on the evidence that Turners directly threaten to its employees or place an “Undue hardship” on Hershey. Therefore, the question whether Turners can perform the essential function of her position with reasonable accommodation is an open material fact for trial. Hershey will have a opportunities at trial to defeat Turners claim by presenting that her proposed accommodation would make vulnerable the health safety of its employees therefore an employer is not requires to accommodate an employee. Moreover, it would carry out an undue hardship that even with the accommodation.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was an influential event in American history that caused workers and business owners all of the country to revisit their work-related regulations. Many dangers that occurred as a result of the factory owners’ actions caused the tragedy to be more harmful than necessary. Other preventable mistakes made by the firemen and their equipment added to the tragic nature of this event. America has learned that factories and businesses need safer rules and work environments to protect their employees. Because of this tragic event in the nation’s history, the government passed an abundance of laws to support the safety of workers and their work conditions.

Part 3-5 perticularly says that it is the duty of the manufacturer – Maruson, Distributor – Muso and also the ultimate seller to retailer or consumers – Spiral to asses the safety of the standard of the product and to ensure no harm happens as a result of

The doctrine is commonly used to show to whom a defendant—usually a prescription drug manufacturer—owes the duty to adequately warn. The doctrine bars a plaintiff’s claims if she cannot show that the allegedly inadequate warning was a producing cause of her injury. Relators argued that the learned intermediary doctrine does not apply to claims under the FCA. Specifically, Relators argued that SPI cannot rely on the learned intermediary doctrine because there is no causal connection between the warnings given by the prescribing physicians and the alleged FCA violations. SPI, on the other hand, argued that, at trial, Relators should be forced to account for the role of the learned intermediary.

In the lawsuit of Evelyn Rosa and Robert Rosa, as individuals, and Holly Rosa; in response to the death of Michael Robert Rosa, Plaintiff, vs Taser International, Inc., the legal theory pertains to product liability. Legal theory,” refers to the principle under which a litigant proceeds, or on which a litigant bases its claims or defenses in a case. It can also be the law or body of rules of conduct which are of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by a controlling authority.” The Rosa’s were seeking punitive damages in the death of their son from Taser International, Inc., in the state of California.

When money and profits are the most significant in the capitalist society, the employers treated their workers poorly, such as excessive working hours and received lower wages. The exploitation of

This is something people nowadays often experience but never questioned, like fast fashion and fidget toys (eg. Fidget spinners, slime). They are all promoted because of capitalism, to attract consumers to ceaselessly consume products instead of holding on to

Free enterprise enables corporations to exploit workers, consumers and regulations to their advantage. Employees for large corporations are paid mere wages and given reduced hours; their basic needs are barely met. When corporations make an error, they are rarely held accountable for the damages done beyond monetary settlements. Similar to the America Crevecoeur knew, it continues that “men often eat each other for want of food” (322) or “often starve each other for want of food” (322); but instead of a want of food, it is greed and power which drives them. In addition to capitalist society, Crevecoeur would also be unhappy with America’s regression in the areas of racial and religious tolerance.

Throughout the case of Tardif vs Wiebe the concepts of liability are explored. Both in which situation it arises and the consequence that go along with it when a business is held responsible. The case study provides an excellent example of liability. Vicarious liability is explained as when an “employer is liable for the injuries caused by employees during their employment” (Yates, R.A., 2016).

Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 243. What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory in finding the defendant liable (Herron, 2011). Under the strict product liability theory, K-Mart (seller) would be held liable for defects in their products even if those defects were not introduced by them; also for failing to discover them during production (Herron, 2011).

Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? 
Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.

According to Varul (2008) the notion of ‘ethical consumerism’ seems to be a contradiction in terms, since market and morality are commonly viewed as stark opposites with morality being sought in the contestation of certain goods’ commodity status and in the blocking of certain exchanges. What is new in the phenomenon of market society, a phenomenon that has been observed over the last 30 years, is the emergence of consumption as a criterion for the quality of life and as a sign of the demand for it. Moreover, society has become in our time a society that governs and evaluates its members, including the ability to consume. Without legislation regulating the market, people’s choices will be

In this case, Shriram Industries was allowed to operate in a designated air pollution control area. Oleum Gas leaked accidentally from the factory. Though the company was in compliance with the limits permissible air pollution laws at that time, the Supreme Court of India slapped the company with liability for the accidental leakage of gas. Hence, Courts of India uphold the “polluter pays principle” for damages caused on account of polluting activities whereby the polluting parties have to pay out civil liabilities for environmental