100%(26)26 out of 26 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.
and defective product. These claims would fall under the design and defect of strict liability due to the fact that NDB manufacture a product with an unsafe design that resulted in injuries and damages being sustained by some consumers (Fraud and Negligence Torts, 2019). This unsafe design made the product unreasonably dangerous and as a result, NBD could be held strictly liable. If NBD be found liable in court, the consumers would be eligible to receive a variety of damages.
DUALPLEX 3605DamagesA form of damages the affected parties could receive, is compensatory damages. Under compensatory damages, the consumers would be eligible to receive both special and general damages. Special damages could be used to cover medical expenses, lost wages and property damage. General damages could be awarded for their pain and suffering (Tort Damages, 2019). Consumers could also be awarded punitive damage for the careless actions of NDB’s research and development team in covering up the product defect. These actions were extremely reckless and showed a pursuit for profit at any cost and a deliberate disregard for the well-being of others (Tort Damages 2019). NBD could however, could offer several defenses against the claims of the consumers. DefensesOne defense that NDB could use against the claim of negligence, is that of contributory negligence. Under this defense, NDB could counter that the damages occurred as a result of the negligent actions of the consumers, due to their own failure to unplug the laptops when they were fully charged. The contributory negligence defense would bar the consumers from recovering any damages due to their own negligence (Fraud and Negligence Torts, 2019). In defense of strict liability claims, NBD could argue that the consumers’ misuse of the product resulted in their injuries and damages. NBD could claim that not only did they issue a disclaimer against all warranties, they also provided an explicit warning in the instruction manualagainst leaving the device plugged in after it was fully charged (Fraud and Negligence Torts, 2019). By ignoring this warning, the consumer used the product in a manner that was cautioned against by the manufacturer and so NBD should be held liable.