100%(12)12 out of 12 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 4 pages.
circumstances' customers did not even feel it necessary to read the instruction manual and therefore never saw the warning. Because the warning was inconspicuously buried in the instruction manual and not visible in a way that all expected user would notice the court could rule it as insufficient. In which NBD would be responsible for compensatory damages and tangible losses. In response to this, New Brand Design, Inc. could use the defense of comparativefault. Comparative fault is “a tort rule for allocating damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage.” (Comparative, n.d) This would not completely remove the company from fault, however it would allow them to reduce the impact of the damages due to the plaintiff. 3
ReferencesComparative Negligence. (n.d.). Retrieved from Defenses to Product Liability Actions (n.d.). Retrieved from --module-5-of-5Proving Fault: What is Negligence? (2019, November 12). Retrieved from University of Maryland University College. (2020). Negligence and Product Liability. Retrieved from -list/negligence-and-productliability.html?ou=5040064