YouAre the Judge
CourseName Course Number
Thispaper presents the verdict for Case Example D. The case involves ZoomCar Company who has been filed a complaint by its client, DanielBoone, after he got lost and drove into a high crime area where hewas dragged from his car and severely beaten. Zoom Car Companyproduces automobiles with special features such as a compass on thedashboard which is manufactured by Corrigan Rulers, Compasses andSlide Rules, Inc. Daniel Boone purchased a car from the company. Thecar had a dashboard compass. However, the compass malfunctioned andeventually resulted to Daniel’s mauling incident. Daniel Boone suesZoom Car Company for his medical expenses because he believes thatthe vehicle’s faulty compass was the reason for his injury. Twoissues are likely to arise in the case – product liability andphysical injury.
Underthe product liability law, all parties including the manufacturer ofa faulty product, the wholesaler, and even the retail store owner areaccountable for whatever damage the product may bring to theconsumers. Products that contain defects and that which cause dangerto the consumer pr a person whom the product was given, are thesubjects of cases of product liability. Product liability may includetangible property and intangible ones. For the plaintiff to win thecase, he must be able to prove that the product was indeed defective.There are three kinds of product defects that cause liability insuppliers and manufacturers. This includes manufacturing defects,design defects, and marketing defects. Design defects are somethinginnate because they already exist even before the product was evenmanufactured. Simply put, the manufacturer must not implement theproduction of goods with design defects because it will only posedanger to consumers. Manufacturing defects happen on the course ofproduction or construction of the product. Marketing defects dealwith inappropriate instructions or failure of the company to warn theconsumers of any impending dangers in the use of the product.
Underthe product liability law, if Daniel Boone is able to product thatthe product is defective, he may file a case against ZoomCar Company. CorriganRulers, Compasses and Slide Rules, Incdoes not have any accountability because the fact that Zoom CarCompany installed the product to the car, it means that the compasswas still functional. In particular, there are two things that mustbe taken into account in this case: First, Zoom Car Company may be atfault because they were the last group that had the decision in theproduction of the car prior to Daniel’s purchase and because of thefact that the product itself led to Daniel’s physical injuries.Second, Zoom Car Company is no longer in control of Daniel’swhereabouts hence if he got lost in an area where he was mauled theincident was already beyond company’s control. Because there is nostrong proof that the compass caused the harm, then no case may befiled. Nonetheless, it can be said that the company is somehow atfault.
ZoomCar Company has a strong position in this case. To defend the companyfrom the allegation that mauling incident was caused by a faultycompass, the plaintiff must be able to provide strong proof that itis indeed the compass that has defect. The compass is supposed tofunction as a guide and that which directs the drivers to where theyare going. The compass is not designed to tell whether the area isdangerous or not. Had the compass functioned well, would Daniel Boonestill traverse the same route? It is very clear that Daniel Boonehimself was not aware whether the area was dangerous or not. If hehad known the area to be dangerous, he should have already turned tothe other direction or route. The fact that Daniel Boone was in thatarea was already beyond the company’s control. Zoom Car Companycannot just tell all its consumers to avoid going to certaindangerous areas just because the company installed a compass on thecars they manufacture. In addition, if the compass had faultydefects, Daniel Boone should have gone to the company’s office andhad it fixed since it may still perhaps be under the warranty period.
MyDecision as the Judge
Asa rule in the legal system in the United States of America, anyperson can legally file a suit against any individual for almostabout anything. What is important is that they should pay the filingcharges or obtain a waiver from the law court. The ground for DanielBoone’s case is product liability. In this case, a plaintiff maybring a suit to an incident in which a faulty product brought damage.Daniel Boone no longer has to show that the product has faultydefects as long as Daniel is able to prove that the compass wasindeed installed by Zoom Car Company. However, Daniel Boone’s caseis more likely going to be unsuccessful. Since the main purpose ofthe case is to ask for medical support, Daniel Boone should likewiseshow that the compass was the ultimate reason for his injuries. Inthis case, the courts are likely going to search for “but for”causation. Nonetheless, the undetected criminal incident caused byanother party is generally considered as an interfering andsuperseding circumstance such that the jury will discover that thecompass was not the proximate reason for Daniel’s injuries. To winthe case, Daniel Boone must be able to show that being physicallymauled while on the course of driving to a dangerous place is one ofthe dangers brought about by using a defective compass. This will bea very difficult one for Daniel to prove. Hence, Daniel will not winthe case.
My Own Opinion
Personally,I believe that there is nothing to change with strict productliability law. The law was able to provide a clear explanation onwhat is covered by this law. As stated, under the product liabilitylaw, all parties including the manufacturer of a faulty product, thewholesaler, and even the retail store owner are accountable forwhatever damage the product may bring to the consumers. However, forplaintiffs to win the case, they must be able to prove that the causeof the damage, accident, or any injury is directly brought about bythe faulty product. Otherwise, the court will search for other causesof the injury, accident, or damage. I believe that Daniel Boone’scase is brought about by his negligence to survey the routes where hepasses and not because of the faulty compass. The compass is, afterall, designed to give direction. It is not a device to warn driversabout impending dangers.
Rheingold,Paul D. `Proof Of Defect In Product Liability Cases`. Tenn.L. Rev. 38(1970): 325. Print.
Shavell,Steven, and A Mitchell Polinsky. `The Uneasy Case For ProductLiability`. (2007): 69. Print.