Product liability tort is a type of tort where a vendor, manufacturer or seller of a particular product is held liable for any harm or injury caused upon a user due to that product being dangerously defective or unsafe for use. The product must, however, have been used for its intended purpose without unreasonable interference. There are three injured parties in this case; Moe and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Moe was tasked with the job of painting the front of a building used by Lacy’s Department store. Moe fell off a ladder, owned by Lacy’s, thus breaking his collarbone. The ladder was defective as it had gone well past its life cycle which is the period that a product effectively functions. The manufacturer of the ladder, Spandex, had warned of the wearing out of the hinges of the ladder after three years of use thus making their ladders defective after that particular period. Sears, the sellers of the ladder, had also made it clear, by way of a legible inscription, that Spandex ladders have a normal operating life of a period of three years. It was therefore incumbent upon Lacy’s, as the users of such a ladder, to discard the ladder after three years or to share the aforementioned information to any potential users of the ladder.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moe has a solid claim against Lacy’s alone as Mark was not privy to the warning about the ladder and the former manager was no longer an employee of Lacy’s. It is Lacy’s that have the responsibility to show a duty of care to their clients or employees, and hence they acted negligently thereby causing harm to Moe thus proving causation. They are thus tortuously liable for the injuries suffered by Moe.
Mr. Smith is a passer-by who is injured by the fall of Moe off the ladder. It is due to the faultiness of the ladder that Moe fell thus injuring Mr. Smith. In claims in tort, negligence is the central factor, and in establishing cases of negligence, causality or causation is the central factor. It must be shown therefore that the negligent act of a defendant directly or indirectly caused the injury suffered by the plaintiff. There are two types of causation in law, cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the ‘but for’ test which is simply the process of establishing the existence of a causal connection between the defendant’s act or omission and the plaintiff’s injury. Therefore, but for the action or omission of the defendant, the resulting circumstances or consequences would not have happened. Proximate cause relates to the foreseeability of the harm caused. This is the premise upon which Mr. Smith’s case against Lacy’s Department store lies that Lacy’s should have foreseen the eventuality of Moe falling off the ladder and onto another person thereby injuring them.
On the face of it, it may seem that Mrs. Smith caused herself injury by not being careful in soliciting help from the public and this might even be argued by the defendant. However, this is not true. The principle of indirect causation applies where there is an intervening force that comes into the picture after the negligent commission or omission of the defendant. Such an intervening force, as it is in this case, combines with the defendant’s act to cause injury to the plaintiff. The intervening cause refers to the actions of a third party, considered a normal response to the defendant’s negligent actions. This is referred to as a dependent intervening force and includes actions of escaping or rescuing as was in this case. It is foreseeable that when an individual is hurt, then another individual might attempt to help or rescue them especially in situations where such attempts would be considered a normal response. Mrs. Smith thus acted normally in attempting to come to the aid of her husband, and thus Lacy’s are liable for her injuries.
Mark is not culpable due to not being privy to the defects of the ladder as well as the doctrine of vicarious liability applying. Sears and Spandex had also disclosed the information about the limitations of the ladder and thus are not liable for the injuries caused.
Question 2
Gina can bring claims against both Nudnik and Laidback for the injuries caused upon her. The claims must, however, be consolidated into one against both Nudnik and Laidback as defendants as it would be an affront to justice to go against them separately out of a singular action. The first defendant, Nudnik, is liable for running Gina down. Regardless of the medicine taken by Nudnik, Gina can claim that it goes against road safety regulations to drive under the influence of any medication. That notwithstanding, the reasons behind the accident do not matter much as the principle of strict liability would apply. Under this principle, an individual is held liable for the consequences arising out of their actions regardless of whether there was fault or intent on their part or not. Nudnik will thus be held liable for running down Gina.
Laidback is liable for contributory negligence. They are thus partially liable for the injuries caused upon Gina. This is because they manufactured and sold medicine that had dizziness as a side effect without disclosing such information to the public. They might not have known, but they should have and would have had conclusive and complete tests if they had conducted enough experimental tests. Laidback is, thus, culpable as there is proximate cause due to their drug causing circumstances leading up to the injury suffered by Gina.
Nudnik can find redress in court as a result of the products manufactured by Laidback and sold to him by his friend Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil did not know the side effects of ‘Mellow,’ the drug manufactured by Laidback. Moreover, Phil was acting in the normal performance of his professional duties and well within his capacity. The drug, pursuant to FDA regulations, could be sold without a prescription and was fit for public consumption. Dr. Phil thus does not have a case to answer as he acted in good faith with a reasonable duty of care to his customer Nudnik. Dr. Phil is thus not liable for the injuries suffered by Nudnik.
Nudnik has a strong claim against Laidback. First for the physical injuries suffered by him and secondly due to the financial injury suffered due to the lawsuit brought against him by Gina as there is causation establishing that were it not for Laidback’s drug then none of those other eventualities would have occurred. It is due to Laidback’s negligent actions that Nudnik felt dizzy and lost control of the car thus striking Gina and subsequently running into the pole. Nudnik is thus vindicated by the liability on Laidback’s part as he was not solely to blame for the resultant consequences that led to the injuries suffered by both him and Gina. Laidback is thus liable for the injuries caused upon Nudnik directly and Gina indirectly.
The principles of strict liability and foreseeability are thus essential in this case as they make both Nudnik and Laidback liable for the injuries caused even though Nudnik is eventually indemnified.
