Product Liability

You work for a highly successful international manufacturer. Your boss is working with a group of clients who are located overseas and are not familiar with U.S. tort law. Your boss requests you to conduct some research on product liability. You recall from your business classes that businesses that make, sell, or lease goods can be held liable for the physical harm or property damage caused by those goods to consumers, users, or bystanders.

In your report, you are to include the following information:

Identify and discuss the four (4) elements of negligence.
Using the internet, research and analyze a legal case involving products liability.
Discuss in detail the defenses that were raised or could have been raised.
Provide your opinion on whether you believe it is fair to hold employers responsible for the negligent acts of their employees.
Include a minimum of three legal references as support for your paper

ANSWER

Product Liability

The four elements of a negligence case that must be proven for a lawsuit to be successful include;

Duty

Duty is also referred to as duty of care. In simple terms, duty means an obligation to do or not do something that will harm another person. Everyone has a duty to refrain from certain acts that are likely to cause chaos or affect others negatively. For example, as a driver, one has an obligation to follow the road rules to avoid causing accidents that could harm other people. The relationship between parties create an existence or nonexistence of duty to them (Goudkamp & Ihuoma, 2016). Manufacturers have a duty of care which is to ensure the products they sell are reasonably safe or provide warnings on the dangers that may be caused if a person uses their product.  The scope of duty to the consumer is if the product is used as intended.

Breach

Once the duty of care has been proven as existent in a case. The next element of negligence is proving the breach of the duty of care. A breach is established when a company fails to live up to the standard of care (Goudkamp & Ihuoma, 2016). A plaintiff has to prove that the defendant’s act or refusal to give the required disclaimer put the plaintiff through an unreasonable risk of injury or harm. The defendant failed to meet their obligation.

Causation

There are two types of causation. The actual cause and the proximate cause. The actual cause is also referred to as cause, in fact. It means that were it not for the negligent act or the omission of the defendant, the plaintiff could not have been harmed. For example, were it not for the driver drinking and driving, the children would not have been injured.  Proximate cause requires re natural, direct, and uninterrupted consequence of a negligent act or omission.  Proximate cause requires foreseeability. That is, if the defendant’s connection to the injury caused is proved unforeseeable or too remote, then the jury might find the defendant not guilty.

Harm

Harm is experienced in many different forms. It can be emotional trauma. It could be economic such as medical costs, loss of wages. It could also be pain and suffering. If a person is not harmed, the fourth element of negligence will not be met, and the negligence lawsuit will not prevail.

One example of a product liability lawsuit is the one faced by general motors in 2014. The company was being sued for negligence and selling their customers cars with a faulty ignition. The vehicles with the defective switch had been linked to nearly 400 injuries and 124cdearhs. This led GM to a recall of nearly 2.6 million vehicles (Justia, n,d). The ignition switch of the affected cars could cause the engine to shut off while in motion, which prevented the inflation of airbags in the event of an accident. Although the company issued a recall in 2014, the complainants alleged that GM knew about the fatal defect in their vehicles.GM paid $870 million to settle the death and injury claims and another $900 million to the department of justice as settlement.

One of the defenses used by general motors in the lawsuit was the product defect did not cause the plaintiff’s injury. GM’s defense claimed that it was not liable for injuries caused by collision as collision is not the right way or the normal intended use of an automobile. Therefore, the defense argued that it is not the responsibility of a manufacturer to design an automobile to prevent injuries caused by a collision. The collision occurs for reasons not connected with the design and manufacture of the automobile (Justia, n.d).

Another defense that GM’s defense could have used is the negligence on the plaintiff’s side. Negligence can range from the lack of use of the vehicle in the right way to completely ignoring the safety belt (. The defense could have argued that the plaintiff was only injured because they did not have a safety belt on or because they were speeding, which is the plaintiff’s negligence.

Another angle that could have been applied in GM’s lawsuit is the assumed risk. This is whereby the plaintiff is aware that the way they are using the product could lead to an injury or malfunction but still uses it in the same manner (Brannen et al., 2017). In this case, GM could have used this defense especially for the plaintiffs who were injured but were overspeeding or were way over the speed limit, which could have caused injury or even death.

In my opinion, it is fair that employers are held responsible for the negligent acts of their employees if the employees were working under the construction of the employer. For example, if a restaurant promises early delivery that is within 35 minutes, failure to which the next meal is free. The delivery person drives so fast that they hit a pedestrian. The liability should fall on the employer because the employee only hit the pedestrian because he was driving frantically to ensure that the delivery goes there on time to prevent the employer from incurring extra costs from late deliveries. Any damage caused by an employee under the instruction of the employer is therefore supposed to be charged to the employer (Sharkey, 2018).  However, it is unfair for the employer to be held liable for his employee’s negligent behavior if he was acting independently. For example, if an employee in a restaurant gets an extra tip when they deliver the order before the required time and the said employee drives frantically to ensure they bag the tip, but then they hit a pedestrian, the employer should not be liable because the employee acted on their own.

It is fair to hold employers for the negligent acts of their employees because the employers should be responsible for their employees, especially during hiring. When hiring an employee, the employers need to do their due diligence and ensure that they are hiring a responsible person who is going to act responsibly. It is also the employer’s fault that some things happen because the employees act under their instructions, making them liable. It is also the employers’ responsibility to provide a conducive working environment for their employees to prevent negligent cats. For example, suppose a manufacturing company produces a defective product because the employees were overworked and tired during the manufacturing process. In that case, it is still the employer’s fault, and the liability will be held on the employer.

References

Brannen Jr, F. P., Freed, P. M., Cawley, K. S., & Strong, M. (2017). Product Liability. Mercer L. Rev., 69, 231.

Goudkamp, J., & Ihuoma, M. (2016). A tour of the tort of negligence. James Goudkamp and Melody Ihuoma,‘A Tour of the Tort of Negligence’(2016), 32.

Justia. Horn V. General motors Corp. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/17/359.html

Sharkey, C. M. (2018). Institutional Liability for Employees’ Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages. Val. UL Rev., 53, 1.