How to Negotiate a Settlement

Question 1 

Defective products are known to lead to thousands of serious and minor injuries in the USA. In the case of Ultimate hair Dryer Company, its product sold to Katie malfunctioned, and this caused her bodily harm. Katie is the plaintiff, and of she decides to go into a trial, she will be required to prove that indeed, the hairdryer was defective, and this caused her injuries. In this case, the hairdryer had a design defect as it is present in the product from the start and indication it is inheritably unsafe. According to the “ res ipsa loquitur ” principle (the thing speaks for itself), the burden will fall to Ultimate Hair Dryer (defendants) (Neufield, 2007). This indicates that the company’s negligence led to the defect, which brought about injuries. An invocation of this doctrine will suggest that the plaintiff (Katie) will not have to prove her case. According to Neufield (2007), a strict liability doctrine indicates the product was defective and not manufacture; however, the manufacturer will have to pay for the injuries caused.

In this case, Ultimate Hair Dryer will be a force to prove that it is innocent and form the case of the hairdryer malfunction. The company is indeed, guilty. Whether the res ipsa loquitur or strict liability doctrine is invoked, Ultimate Hair Dryer will still end up being liable for Katie’s injuries. If the case finds its way to court, Ultimate Hair Dryer will be forced to pay monetary damages award. These awards must be sufficient enough to cater to losses such as hospital bills, medication costs, lost wages, suffering, and pain, among others. In 2016, Conair was forced to pay more than $5.4 million to settle a hairdryer lawsuit action by Cynthia L. Czuhaj ( Czuhaj v. Conair Corporation) . Ultimate Hair Dryer is bound to pay millions in damages if the case goes to trial. In this case, Ultimate Hair Dryer should ensure that it does not take the case to trial.

Question 2 

Katie should make her the initial $50,000 she had requested. Prior to making this offer, Katie most probably had calculated all the expenses she will have to incur. This will ensure that she pays off her lawyer and caters for the health care costs associated with her injuries. Moreover, she will use some of the money to cater for additional expenses and losses. This will see Ultimate Hair Dryer from being forced to pay off millions of dollars by the court. On the other hand, Ultimate should not make a counteroffer to Katie that does not go below $45,000. In this case, Katie is more likely to agree to the offer as it is not way below her initial offer, unlike the $15,000 that is $35,000 below the initial $50,000.

Question 3 

The most affected party in the event the case goes to court is Ultimate Hair Dryer. The firm will not only be forced to pay Katie for her injuries but will also be forced to make product recalls. The hairdryer malfunctioned on its own, and this shows that there is some safety hazard with the product. The hairdryer will be removed from the sales displays, and it cannot be legally sold in the market.

Moreover, Ultimate Hair Dryer can face many class-action lawsuits. Any other individual affected by the product will present their case before the court, and Ultimate Hair Dryers will be subjected to litigation. This is bound to change the image of the company in public and can affect revenues as there is an erosion of trust in its products. On the other hand, if Katie is awarded damages awards, the attorney fees will be taken form the awards rather than received upfront. This indicates she is likely to receive less money than she had expected.

References

Czuhaj v. Conair Corporation, et al. , Case No. 3:13-cv-01901, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Neufield, P. J. (2007). Products Liability: Litigation Trends on the 10th Anniversary of the Third Restatement.  Rev. Litig. ,  26 , ix.