Respond to the following:
Product liability law grew out of the notion of protecting consumers from deceptive advertisements of products and products that are unsafe and dangerous in the marketplace. Lawsuits for product liability actions are rooted in contract law and tort law. If a business sells a dangerous or defective product that can cause injuries to a customer, it creates a risk for legal action that could cost a lot of money. If a manufacturer's advertising results in deception and a breach of an expressed warranty or implied warrant, legal action can also result.
Research and summarize one (1) type of lawsuit below using the resource links provided. Briefly explain the facts, your understanding of the law, and the decision and reasoning used by the court.
One (1) breach of warranty lawsuit based on a deceptive advertisement OR one (1) product defect case pursuant to a product design defect, manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn of a defect.
Imagine you were tasked with defending against a product liability tort action. Briefly explain the three (3) defenses in the reading and which you believe would be the most effective against the lawsuit example you provided and why.
Full Answer Section
Law and Analysis:
This case involves a product liability claim based on a manufacturing defect. A manufacturing defect occurs when a product deviates from the intended design and is unreasonably dangerous. In this case, the faulty brakes represent a manufacturing defect that made the Speedster unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.
Under product liability law, manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products. This means that consumers can recover damages without having to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
Defenses in Product Liability Actions
- Contributory Negligence: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries. If the plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm, their damages may be reduced or barred.
- Assumption of Risk: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by using the product. This defense is often used in cases involving dangerous activities or products.
- State-of-the-Art Defense: In some jurisdictions, manufacturers can use the state-of-the-art defense to argue that their product was designed and manufactured according to the highest industry standards at the time.
Most Effective Defense
In the Johnson v. ACME Corporation case, the most effective defense for ACME Corporation would likely be to argue that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by their own negligence or assumption of risk. If the plaintiff was operating the scooter in a reckless or unsafe manner, or if they were aware of the risks associated with off-road riding, ACME could argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury.
However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of these defenses will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the strength of the plaintiff's evidence.
Sample Answer
Product Liability Lawsuit: Case Summary
Case: Johnson v. ACME Corporation (Fictional Case)
Facts: ACME Corporation manufactured and sold a line of electric scooters. One of their models, the "Speedster," was marketed as a high-performance scooter suitable for off-road use. However, several consumers reported that the Speedster's brakes were faulty, leading to accidents and injuries