100%(8)8 out of 8 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.
the redesign process, it is difficult to believe that the R&D team did not think of social backlash even if there was one injury resulting from overheating. Disapproval for redesign demonstrates a complete lack of consideration of others. Causation-in-fact principle presents the question, “but for” the act of the defendant, would the injury have occurred (Negligence – UMGC, 2020). NBD did not directly harm the consumers, and only a portion of the Dualplex had been ignited and injured the consumers. However, the causation, in this case, was a lack of oversight on the design and production.Proximate causation means that the harm suffered by the defendant was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the plaintiff’s conduct (Negligence – UMGC, 2020). To argue that it is reasonable to anticipate an electronic product will overheat and ignite will be considered preposterous in the eye of a court. Even if it was reasonable that there was a risk associated with theproduct igniting, there should have been a warning label instructing the consumers to be cautious about the risk.In the case of an actual injury, the plaintiffs who were injured by Dualplex must demonstratethat those injuries had directly occurred from the tablet igniting. Since there are multiple common injuries relating to the ignition, it would not be hard for the plaintiffs to prove these facts in the court. 3
The third type of tort to be considered is strict product liability tort. In most states, any retail, wholesale, or manufacturer who sells an unreasonably dangerous defective product that causes injury to a user of the product is strictly liable (Fraud and Negligence – UMGC, 2020). When discussing product liability tort, the current situation surrounding the tort needs to be analyzed in-depth with a design defect. A design defect is a product designed according to the manufacturer's standards but is an unsafe design. The issue at hand involves the power system of the tablet. Since the manufacturer follows the blueprint that the design team builds, the accountability for the faulty product is attributed to a design defect. The design process overlooked providing a safe power throughout the Dualplex system, so the litigation would require NBD to investigate and discover what part of the R&D design went wrong. Damages to be awarded under the potential claimsThere are two types of damages to consider for the awards. One is compensatory damages, which is to make the injured party in the same position that the party would have been in had the tort never been committed (Tort damages – UMGC, 2020). Under compensatory damages, there