C causation in fact if the consumers had never

This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 10 pages.

c)causation in fact – If the consumers had never purchased the Dualplex 360, then there would have been no chance for it to ignite. d)proximate causation – Consumers who purchased the Dualplex 360 can prove that by it igniting resulted in personal injury. e)actual injuries – Consumers would present medical bills, medical records, doctor notes, and photographs to support their injury claims. These five elements may be proved either before or during a trial with various methods, however, if the plaintiff(s) are missing any one of the five elements, it will cripple the probabilityfor a fruitful negligence tort claim.
4DUALPLEX 360 REPORTIn the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co (1981), Ford Motor Co. was held liable for negligence in producing and bringing to market the ill-fated Ford Pinto. It was discovered that in rear-end collisions as low as 20 mph, due to a small crumple zone and the gas tank being located behind the rear axle, the gas tank would be crushed and moved forward catching on the top of the rear axle and tearing. Due to the cheap metal and welding seams used on the car, it would easily open the passenger compartment in a collision, allowing the gasoline to leak in, the occupants would be trapped in the vehicle, and when the gasoline ignited they would either burn to death or be severely burned. Ford knew of this during testing of the vehicle and brought it to the market and upon being sued they were negligent for their actions in one of the largest civil monetary damages awarded at the time (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,1981).Whenever there is a negligence claim, there is usually a strict products liability claim tiedin with it. Strict product liability involves the commercial sale of defective products and any retail, wholesale, or manufacturer who sells an unreasonably dangerous, defective product that causes injury to a user of the product is strictly liable (UMGC, 2019b). There are three kinds of defects involved with strict products liability: production, design, and marketing. A production defect occurs when products are not manufactured to a manufacturer’s own standards.Consumers of the defective product are later injured as a result of this variation from the manufacturer’s standards. A design defect occurs when a product is manufactured according to the manufacturer’s standards but is an unsafe design. Defects in marketing deal with improper instructions and failures to warn consumers of latent dangers in the product (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).In PEPSI-COLA GEN. BOTTLERS, INC. v. DEAN (1985), Mr. Dean purchased a bottle of Pepsi-Cola, set it on the counter and left to help someone. When he came back ten minutes
5DUALPLEX 360 REPORTand picked the bottle up and tried to open, it exploded causing damages to his face and right eye. When the case was brought to court, Pepsi-Cola was held strictly liable for Mr. Deans injuries that he suffered and Pepsi-Cola went on to lose the case on appeal (PEPSI-COLA GEN.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture