Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Part 1 In the case of Total Motors the possible theories that apply to this case are product liability, negligence, and warranty. The Cunningham’s-Weber can sue Speedy Motors and Total Motors. They can say that “Speedy Motors” should be held responsible for the sale of the car. They issued the vehicle warranty. They can also sue Total Motors co .The question involves product liability. They can sue them for product liability because those who make sell or lease goods can be held liable for physical harm or property damage caused by those goods to a consumer user or bystander. Marion Cunningham and her children can sue for pain and suffering. As stated the two surviving teenage children, Richie and Joanie has both suffered some psychological harm. Richie has fallen into a deep depression and may never again be the optimistic if somewhat naïve kid that everyone loves. They will also request lost earnings compensation for Howard’s income that they were dependants on. Cunningham is a 45 year old successful entrepreneur running Cunningham Hardware. Chuck had a promising athletic career and was rumored to be an early draft pick in the NFL draft upcoming. Since his income is not current no one is dependent upon it. His death will strengthen the Cunningham’s case because they lost a father as well as a brother. The company neglected to put warning on the product that warned the costumers of possible acceleration problems. So another question involves in this case would be negligence and whether or not Total showed due care. Under the due care elements it states that the manufacturer must place adequate warnings on the label informing the user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware. The final question involves express and implied warranty. Potsy Weber is the sole survivor of the accident. He will present a similar case as the Cunningham’s. Since their lawsuits are congruent I will classify this suit as a class action. This allows al the consumers who were injured by the product to pool their resources together against a large corporation. Potsy can sue Total Motors for medical cost for
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
the disfiguring burns and crippling injuries which he will suffer for the rest of his life. As well as, compensation for pain and suffering for his crippling injuries. Potsy witness the death of Howard Cunningham and Chuck Cunningham. Chaci is suing Total Motors also, for the lost of her cousin Arthur Fonzrelli. Fonzerilli has no dependants. It is not stated that Chaci is dependent on Arthur’s income. Part 2 Product Liability Reference- Burns Indiana Statue Annoted Title 34 arts 1-26 Indiana has adopted the 402A of the restatement of torts as the law in products liability cases. In legislative intent that the common law theory of “breach implied warranty in tort” is superseded by and included in “strict liability in tort”. The abolition of privity requirement in cases involving a product or work which is
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/09/2011 for the course ENG 104 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Ball State.

Page1 / 22


This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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