100%(9)9 out of 9 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 10 pages.
(5) The defect was an actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, (6) Other than Alaska, Califor-nia and Hawaii, consumers bear the burden of proving the product is defective. Consumers may makesuch arguments: a.NBD designed and sold the laptop (Dualplex 360) to consumers b.NBD is a company that designs, brands, and manufactures Dualplex 360 across the globe. c.Consumers suffer an injury, e.g., burned arm, property damage from fire, etc. 3Dualplex 360 Case
Name, name, name, named.Before Dualplex 360 came to market, the company knew about the overheating issue and know-ingly covered it over with a blanket statement of no express or implied warranty. e.The overheating and self-ignition of the battery caused fire and harmed people and properties,likely across several states and countries. Strict liability disregards intent. It does not matter whether the manufacture took caution in avoiding de-fects. The prima facie in the case demonstrates that the product did cause harm and that the manufacturermay be liable. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co. demonstrated that an injured plaintiff in a de-sign defect case was entitled to a full recovery of damages. The plaintiff pursued monetary damages forinjuries sustained to his hand and was awarded, even though the product contained a warning. Claim 2: NegligenceUnder strict liability, all the plaintiff need show is that the product failed. However, under a negli-gence standard, the plaintiff must show that the company did not meet its duty of care to the consumer increating the product, and that the company's actions were the proximate cause of the failure (no interven-ing factors outside of the control of the computer created the failure, such as a hardware failure). Ele-ments to negligence are (1) Duty, (2) Breach of duty (United States v. Carroll Towing, 1947), (3) Breachcaused harm, and (4) Proximate cause and damages. The elements to gross negligence: (1) Individualwas aware of the consequences of his action or omission and (2) intentionally caused harm. In the Dualplex 360 case, consumers can argue that: a.NBD as a manufacturer has a duty of designing products that do not cause harm under reasonableuse b.by allowing the defective products sold worldwide, NBD breached such duty to its consumerbase c.such defective laptops caused harm to both person and property d.overheating of the laptop battery is sufficient to burn the human body; self-ignition of the batteryis sufficient to cause a fire 4Dualplex 360 Case
Name, name, name, nameNBD knew about the design defect but decided the profit from selling the product would outweigh the po-tential lawsuits. Therefore, NBD was aware of the consequences. Further, it is reasonable to assume thatthe organization knew that the product would bring about damaging consequences and made an effort torelieve themselves of the responsibility and duty by using the blanket statement in the instruction manual.