Cases (Midterm 2) - Lecture notes Midterm lectures PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases on midterm 2...

Description

Case 12.2: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. Issue: -Whether or not the Long Island Railroad Co. was liable for the injuries suffered by Palsgraf -Did the railroad guards act negligently in dealing with the man carrying the package? Rule: -The plaintiff must show a “wrong” done to themselves -The plaintiff must show a violation of their rights Analysis: -The guard’s conduct was not unreasonable Conclusion: -The railroad company had not been negligent toward Palsgraf -The injury was not foreseeable Case 13.2: Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox Issue: -Hickox filed a suit against Wilson Sporting Goods Co. claiming product liability based on a design defect -Whether or not Wilson was held liable for the injuries (concussion and permanent hearing loss) suffered by Hickox Rule: -The consumer-exception test and the risk-utility test are used to determine whether a product’s designed is defective -A design is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary customer wold expect when the product is used in an intended manner Analysis: -The jury reasonably found that the mask was more dangerous when compared to others sold at the same time -Commercially safer alternatives were available -Wilson representatives assured that the mask was safer than most, as it evenly distributed force across the mask in the event of impact Conclusion: -The judgment of the trial court was affirmed -Hickox was awarded $750,000 in damages, his wife was awarded $25,000 Case 13.3: Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc. Issue: -Whether or not Medtronic was held liable for endangering Johnson’s life -Medtronic had provided inadequate warning about the defibrillator -Question of whether or not the the device had a design defect Rule: -The particular use of a product is contrary to the manufacture’s instructions does not establish that the use could not be anticipated

Analysis: -In certain instances, a manufacture may be held liable where it choses to warn of danger rather than preclude the danger by design Conclusion: -The appellate court held that Johnson could not pursue a claim based on inadequate warnings -The appellate court asserted that Johnson could pursue a claim alleging a design defect Case 20.1: Coker v. Pershad Issue: -Whether or not AAA was liable for for damages suffered by Coker -Whether or not AAA was liable for the actions of Five Star Auto Service & Pershad, an independent contractor of AAA Rule: -One who hires an independent contractor has no right of control over the manner in which the work is to be done -Whether or not the employer provides the workman with tools -Five Star Auto Service was an independent contractor hired by AAA who possessed all its own materials and goods Analysis: -AAA is an automobile club that provides multiple services to people other than roadside assistance -Five Star Auto Services was in business for itself and performed repairs services for customers other than those with AAA Conclusion: -Affirmation of the lower court’s ruling -AAA is not liable for the damages Coker suffered -AAA did not control the manner and means of Five Star’s work...