Friday, March 8, 2019

Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defenses

Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defense In my opinion Wood would most likely win the law get against either the peanut or the jar manufacturer on the background of strict liability or negligence, which totallyows a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous produce to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of the increase even in the absence of a hire or negligent conduct on the p ruse of the manufacturer or seller (Bagley, 2013).Therefore, Wood should recover damages even if the seller exercised all viable financial aid in the manufacture and sale of the product, beca lend oneself the defect in the product is the basis for liability (Bagley, 2013). Negligence carrys could too be utilise in the attempt of recovery for damages, because at that place should catch been practices put in place to figure product safety. Negligence is considered any conduct that involves an unreasonably great risk of causing smirch to another person or damage to property that requires all people to take appropriate c are in any given situation (Bagley, 2013).Although it may not establish been an intentional act of negligence the manufacturer had a duty to watch sure that the products that they produce are safe for consumer use. The manufacturer should have taken reasonable measures to conduct product safety tests to determine the safety of the product before distributing it. I feel that extra precautions and tests should be done to ensure safety when manufacturing any products that will be used in nutriment production or storage to make sure that there are no product defects.There are pleas that the manufacturers can use, which include showing that there is no basis for the claim based on product liability, the use of comparative negligence and liability, and unforeseeability of intentional injury using state of the art defense or preemption defense (Bagley, 2013). The state of the art defense shields a manufacturer from liability for a defect ive design if no safer product design is generally recognized as being possible (Bagley, 2013).The defense can state that there is no basis for the claim using state of the art defense, because the defendant should have been more alert when closing the jar and should have used the same methods as he had used previously each time he had closed the jar, which could have prevented his injury on the basis that the safest design was used. Comparative negligence is also known as comparative fault, which can reduce the plaintiff s damages depending on the degree to which his or her own negligence contributed to the injury (Bagley, 2013).Preemption defense is used in cases of product liability, because there are real federal laws and regulations that set minimum safety standards are held to preempt state-law product liability claims, therefore this defense is used as an attempt to turn away the possibility of state-law product liability claims in any sphere governed by federal safety law and regulation (Bagley, 2013).Ultimately it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, because manufactures are held stringently liable for its defective products regardless of how remote the manufacturer is from the final exploiter of the product even when the distributor makes final inspections, corrections, and adjustments of the product (Bagley, 2013). Reference Bagley, C. (2013). Managers and the levelheaded Environment Strategies for the 21st (7th ed). South-Western. Retrieved from http//digitalbookshelf. southuniversity. edu/books/9781285404837/id.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.