Assignment #5 Case 10-2

Assignment #5 Case 10-2 - evidence is believed which is a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Juan Pesantez Business Law 6:30 pm 02/26/09 Assignment #5 Case 10-2 Brief of “Welge v.Planters Lifesavers CO” ISSUE: Whether of not the doctrine of the principle can apply to this case, when an accident can itself be evidence of liability, if it is the kind of accident that would not have occurred but for a defect in the product, and if it is reasonable plain that the defect was not introduced after the product as sold. And whether or not the seller is liable for a defected product that caused injuries to the consumer after this was sold? RULE: Yes, it can, because in this case the accident was evidence that the product was defected. Also the strict-liability element in modern product liability law comes precisely from the fact that a seller, subject to that law, is liable for defects in his product even if those defects were introduced, without the slightest fault of his own, for failing to discover them, at some anterior stage of production ANALYSIS: The court knows to a virtual certainty (always assuming that the plaintiff’s
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: evidence is believed, which is a matter for the jury( that the accident was not due to mishandling after purchase, but to a defect that had been introduced earlier. CONCLUSION: Yes, it can, because in this case the accident was evidence that the product was defected. CRITICAL THINKING: What are Justice Posner’s reasons for reversing the decision? Do you find his reasons compelling? I think he made a good judgment for trusting the plaintiff’s evidence, finding this evidence to be true, after the jury concluded that the accident was not due to mishandling after purchase, but to a defect that had been introduced earlier. ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: If this was the case, then Brockway should have informed Planter about the defect, and action should be done, not just because of the ethical part, but also for preventing any law suits against itself (Planter), because eventually the evidence could lead that the Planter was the responsible for no informing of potential accidents....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/03/2010 for the course HIST 73407 taught by Professor Georgegastil during the Spring '10 term at Palomar.

Page1 / 2

Assignment #5 Case 10-2 - evidence is believed which is a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online