BUS 307 2-1 Discussion Liability PDF

Preview

Summary

Download BUS 307 2-1 Discussion Liability PDF

Description

2-1 Discussion: Liability Read Case 10-1, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 247.  What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable?  What are the judge’s reasons for reversing the decisions of the lower court?  Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? Feel free to research and discuss other product liability cases of interest. Hello Class, 





Justice Posner used strict product liability and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar when finding the defendant liable in this case. These imply that in a case where an accident cannot occur unless the user was negligent is by itself enough evidence that the defendant had been negligent. The accident itself was the cause of the damage. There was no evidence that the jar was not defective when it left the factory or when it was sold at K-Mart, so the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Posner believed that a reasonable amount of pressure could not have shattered the glass jar in normal circumstances since the glass is relatively sturdy by nature. He explained and walked through the events of the jar going from the defendant’s place to the plaintiff’s where the accident occurred. No part of the journey showed or provided evidence that the jar was damaged along the way. Therefore it had to be defective from the very start. I agree with Justice Posner’s decision because there was no evidence of misuse or mishandling on the plaintiff’s part. A jar, especially that kind, should not shatter when being used normally like putting its lid on.

A case I looked at for product liability was a one that was brought against Toyota Motors. A couple driving a Lexus (Toyota makes Lexus) ES300 sedan with their two kids were rear-ended. The cars seats did not fold up as they should have, and this resulted in permanent injury to both kids. Toyota was found liable because the seats were determined to be extremely unsafe, and they had issued no warning to the consumer about the seat’s danger. https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/news/products-liability-law-daily/toyota-hit-with-huge-verdict-in-lawsuitover-defective-lexus-sedan/58804/...