Daniel Boone Negligence Case
Case D, which discusses the malfunctioning of a component of a Zoom car, presents an issue common in the business world today. While product liability cases are not uncommon, successful cases for the plaintiffs often involve them having to prove many aspects of negligence and product liability – primarily duty of care, actual and proximate cause, and proof that the defendant is directly at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Because the doctrine of strict liability likely applies in this case, Daniel Boone does not need to prove that Zoom breached a duty of care, only that his injuries were a result of Zoom’s actions or negligence. The dispute in Case D between Daniel Boone, the plaintiff, and Zoom Car Company, the defendant, brings up several
…show more content…
In relation to the compass malfunctioning, the event that Boone got dragged out of his car and injured was not a foreseeable result – in other words Boone getting beaten is an unforeseeable result of a compass not working. According to the text, “a negligent party who is found to be the actual cause – but not the proximate cause – of the plaintiff’s injuries is not liable to the plaintiff.” Zoom should not be held liable for “all damages set in motion” by its negligent act, and in this case, it seems that getting dragged from a car and beaten as a result of a faulty compass is too far down the cause and effect chain to be a proximate cause of the negligent act. In this sense, there was no way for Zoom to have been able to predict that a faulty compass could lead to someone getting beaten up in a high crime area. In addition, in reference to the risk-utility analysis, there was no indication in the case that the defendant was aware of statistics that the particular brand of compass was faulty. They did not install the compass knowing that it was likely for the component to malfunction, nor did there appear to be a profit/market share motive in Zoom installing the component in their cars, unlike the Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc. case. Hence, the defect in design argument that Boone may have presented would be insufficient for him to win the
In relation to the compass malfunctioning, the event that Boone got dragged out of his car and injured was not a foreseeable result – in other words Boone getting beaten is an unforeseeable result of a compass not working. According to the text, “a negligent party who is found to be the actual cause – but not the proximate cause – of the plaintiff’s injuries is not liable to the plaintiff.” Zoom should not be held liable for “all damages set in motion” by its negligent act, and in this case, it seems that getting dragged from a car and beaten as a result of a faulty compass is too far down the cause and effect chain to be a proximate cause of the negligent act. In this sense, there was no way for Zoom to have been able to predict that a faulty compass could lead to someone getting beaten up in a high crime area. In addition, in reference to the risk-utility analysis, there was no indication in the case that the defendant was aware of statistics that the particular brand of compass was faulty. They did not install the compass knowing that it was likely for the component to malfunction, nor did there appear to be a profit/market share motive in Zoom installing the component in their cars, unlike the Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc. case. Hence, the defect in design argument that Boone may have presented would be insufficient for him to win the