100%(10)10 out of 10 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 4 pages.
designed product case consumers must prove that the product’s design is inherently dangerous ordefective. Knowing that NBD’s research and development team was fully aware of a flawed design issue prior to the laptops release date, all the consumer has to do is prove this same flaw in design, as well as point out the cause of injury/damage to property then they would have an effective claim. This would also result in compensatory damages, tangible losses, and potentiallypunitive damages. In order to defend this claim NBD could claim negligence on behalf of the consumer for not using the product as instructed in the manual. In some cases, “negligence reduces or eliminates the defendant’s liability when a plaintiff fails to meet a standard of 2
reasonable care, and the lack of care is a proximate cause of the injury” (Defenses, n.d). This meaning that NBD could be relieved of the full or a partial amount of the damages.Lastly, consumers could claim that NBD failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions. This claim is self-explanatory for manufacturers must provide adequate warnings or instructions about its product's proper use. In the Dualplex 360 case, NBD had a disclaimer in the instruction manual in regards to leaving the laptop plugged in. However, it never explicitly warned against the possibility of overheating or any other danger. Not to mention, in many