Your honour, members of the jury, I am Natalie Fong and I will represent the plaintiff side. To my left and right are my colleagues Ally Chan and Chloe Li.
Imagine this- a make-you-own-jewellry set, easy to make by spraying water on the beads. You could make bracelets, necklaces-it was everything a kid could want! It was the perfect gift! Until, it took a child's life.
Members of the jury, this is Andy Davis, a widowed woman working two jobs, who does everything in her power to ensure her children can have a warm home and hot meals. Times were tough, but they were happy.
Mrs. Davis had two children, Joey and Hillary. When it was Hillarys 10th birthday, it was the perfect time to gift Hillary the Princess Beads that …show more content…
This is what Andy Davis felt, receiving the news of Joey's death. Joey had ingested 25 beads and vomited, seizing at one point, then falling into a coma in the hospital. At around 2:02 on August 8th, 2009- Joey was pronounced dead by respiratory arrest. Joey Davis had suffered and died, because of the Princess Beads.
Your honour, members of the jury, today my client Andy Davis has accused Happyland Toy Company of manufacturing a defective product, the Princess Beads, which led to her son Joey Davis's fatal respiratory arrest.
We, the plaintiff side, will prove that Joey Davis's death was directly foreseeable and he suffered harm as a direct and proximate result of the defects present in the Happyland beads. In other words, we ask that you find Happyland Toy Company liable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Members of the jury, I beg you to consider three questions. First, did Happyland Toy Company manufacture a defective product? Second, did Joey Davis suffer harm? Third, was the harm caused to Joey Davis a direct and proximate result of the Princess Beads? If you find that the answer is YES to these questions, then you must find the defense