100%(8)8 out of 8 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 9 pages.
Consumers were not informed of the potential risks of overheating. NBD was fully aware of the product defect. This breach by NBD was a direct and deliberant. According to the concept of foreseeability, manufacturers are expected to anticipate certain uses of a product by the consumer (Trombetta & Wilson, 1975). A design defect occurred when there was a foreseeable risk posed by the product when the product was manufactured as intended and used for its intended purposes. The NBD R&D team should have reasonably foreseen that some consumers would leave their laptops plugged in, which would result in consumer injuries and property damage. In fact, if NBD had corrected the overheating issue when it was discovered, the injuries, the sustained injuries would not have occurred. The R&D team failed to rectify the issue that directly resulted in consumer injury. Injury and Damages
DUALPLEX 360 REPORT4A few cases reported actual injury where the Dualplex laptop burned users and damaged property. Other consumers reported the laptop overheated and ignited after the laptop remained plugged into a power source for too long. Generally, if a company is the cause of an accident of some sort, the company will only be held liable if it is found to have acted negligently. This means NBD did not take normal care or precautions in its action, and thus, failed to exercise reasonable care. Strict Liability Under a strict liability claim, the company will be liable regardless of what care was exercised or precautions were taken to prevent the accident. To prove strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the product was inherently defective and that the defect in the product caused theinjury or damage. In Delaware, product liability claims are also based on negligence or breach ofwarranty. Unlike most states, Delaware does not allow for product liability claims based on a theory of strict liability, but additional claims are available under the state’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (FindLaw, 2019). Actions based on liability and negligence include design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings (Negligence and Product Liability, 2019). In design defect claims, the danger is inherent in the design itself. NBD openly claimed to know the product was defective. NBD was fully aware of the overheating and ignitingissue. Manufacturing defect claims allege that a flaw occurred during the manufacturing process,resulting in a dangerous product. NBD intentionally manufactured and released a product that did not meet the required standards. The laptop contained the defective battery the moment it leftNBD’s facilities. In failure to warn cases, a plaintiff may argue that the manufacturer had a duty to warn users of unreasonably dangerous aspects of its product, however, NBD failed to do so.