This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full 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.
- Spring '10