100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 8 pages.
Running Head: Dualplex 3601Dualplex 360 Case ReviewMBA 630December 5, 2020
DUALPLEX 3602IntroductionThis case is pertaining to a product created by New Brand Design, Inc. (NBD), a subsidiary of the Colossal Corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware. NBD conducts business in Serafini, a small country in eastern Europe. Products created by NBD are primarily distributed in Western Europe, North America, and South Africa.The product of interest in this case is a laptop called the Dualplex 360. During research and development, it was discovered that if the Dualplex 360 was left plugged into the wall after the battery reached 100% charge, it could overheat and ignite. With this knowledge, NBD performed a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the payouts of potential lawsuits would be lessthan the cost to fix the problem before distribution. In an effort to protect the company from potential lawsuits, a warning about removing the Dualplex 360 from the charger after it was fullycharged was placed in the manual, along with a notice that doing so would negate any warranty.[CITATION Uni2038 \l 1033 ].The following discussion will include an analysis of the types of claims US plaintiffs can file against NBD, damages that can be awarded under those claims, any applicable defenses to the claims, and recommendation to the CEO on next steps.Possible ClaimsThe US plaintiffs would have to file a tortious suit, choosing between an intentional, negligence, and strict liability tort. An intentional tort is when the defendant took intentional actions to injure the plaintiff, with the injury being “substantially certain” that it was caused by those actions alone. [ CITATION Uni2040 \l 1033 ]. This tort would not apply to this case because NBD did not intentionally design the battery to have issues or to force customers to leave their laptops plugged in too long. Next is the strict liability tort, which is when an
DUALPLEX 3603individual carries out an “activity that causes harm to another without regard for her intent or the standard of care she shows in carrying out that activity.” [ CITATION Uni2040 \l 1033 ]. This could be applicable to this case with argument that there were design defects, which falls under strict products liability. However, the negligence tort has a stronger case due to the warnings that were placed in the manual. The most fitting claim would be a negligence tort, since the company was acting unreasonably by selling a flawed product and only including one warning in the manual. [CITATION Uni2041 \l 1033 ].