You Are the Judge

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 91
  • Published : June 16, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
The plaintiff, Daniel Boone sued Zoom Car company for providing a faulty product that leads to a severe beating. The faulty product is the dashboard, which was manufactured by Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. and installed by Zoom Car Company. The defective dashboard navigates Daniel to a wrong way. This case involves three parties, in order to look into the case, we have to figure out where is the faulty from. If the faulty came from the Zoom Car company, which caused by negligent installation procedures and safety test, Daniel’s lawyer must prove 5 basic elements in negligence. These elements are, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; the defendant breached this duty; the plaintiff suffered injury; the defendant’s negligent act was the actual cause; the defendant’s negligent was the proximate cause. In this case, the Zoom car company obviously owes the duty of care to the customer, and they breached this clause. And the injury of the customer is caused by the faulty product, and most importantly, the causation is foreseeable. If the lawyer could prove these prerequisite, then they can demonstrate what Zoom Car company did is unintentional torts (negligence). If the negligence lawsuit is difficult, the plaintiff could use product liability to sue the manufacture Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules. If this is still difficult, Daniel could use strict liability to sue both manufactures, Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc and Zoom Car company. All parties in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for the injuries caused by the product. If Daniel suing for negligence, the Zoom Car company may defend that the faulty came from another manufacture. And If Daniel suing for the strict liability, it would be a lot more easier to win the case.
tracking img