Group5_Dualplex360_12092020.docx - Running head Dualplex...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

Running head: Dualplex 360 1 Dualplex 360 Group 5: Hadiya Nickerson, Ramos Fanor, Justin Jones, Edward Leonard, and Miao Liu University of Maryland Global Campus
Dualplex 360 2 Dualplex 360 In this case, New Brand Design, Inc. (NBD), a subsidiary of Colossal Corporation, is facing a challenge of crisis caused by its unsafe product. This electronic device designed by NBD has a charging functional defect that can overheat and cause fire. The NBD R&D team did a cost-benefit analysis and decided not to redesign for cost saving purposes. The team put a disclaimer in the manual claiming that the warranty will not be effective if the user does not unplug the charger after it is fully charged with no other warnings. However, the overheating and fire hazard remained since the consumers in these instances do not read the manual. This issue can be a potential problem since the company may be held liable for it. Given what is happening with the Dualplex 360, list the types of claims that the US customers could file in court against NBD and the arguments they might make for each element of their claims. The US customers could file claims in court against NBD for negligence. There are five elements making up a claim for negligence (“Fraud and Negligence Torts”, n.d.). The first element is “existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff”. In this case, NBD owes the plaintiff, which is consumers, a duty of providing a safe product that will not potentially hurt the customers. The second element is “unreasonable behavior by the defendant that breaches the duty of care”. NBD’s R&D team was fully aware of the defect of the electronic

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture