For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW.
Term Paper ID:26205
Essay Subject:
Definition, history & evolution, major cases & decisions, statistics, judgments, manufacturer responsibility.... More...
12 Pages / 2700 Words
12 sources, 12 Citations,
APA Format
$48.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Definition, history & evolution, major cases & decisions, statistics, judgments, manufacturer responsibility.
Paper Introduction:
Business Law and Product Liability: Dix vs. Beretta
Introduction
In the past year, product liability laws have been brought into the spotlight as never before. Newspapers and magazines have featured headline stories about "huge" products liability awards resulting from such things as spilled coffee and bad car paint jobs. In addition, there have been fierce battles for "reform" of products liability law in the United States Congress, and numerous state legislatures have attempted to rewrite common law by enacting statutory limitations on products liability. At the same time, products liability laws are continuing to be developed outside the United States many countries in Europe as well as Japan now have products liability laws.
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
This action has two distinct and innovative features:First, its theory of liability is that a negligence in marketing created aprobability that guns will fall into the hands of criminals and children.Second, it seeks to impose collective liability against a large portion ofthe industry, rather than against a single manufacturer. (1995, July). Representing the gun violence victims and the public interest incourt. LegalAction Project. References Anti-gun lawsuits. Michael removed aloaded ammunition magazine from the handgun and replaced it with an emptymagazine, thinking he had unloaded the gun. Of the cases won by the plaintiff, 5 % of the final awards wereless than $25 , ; only 15% were more than $1 million. In this particularcase, the jury, by a vote of 9 to 3, declared that the gun was notdefective. The Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Kitchen dramatically bolstersthese more favorable rulings by providing the strongest statement yet froma state's high court that gun sellers must be held to the "highest degreeof care" in selling firearms, because using a firearm "involves such a highdegree of risk of serious injury or death." As the Legal Action Project'sDirector, Dennis Henigan, stated: "Selling guns is not like selling vacuumcleaners. It is alleged that gun manufacturers like Beretta havelong had the ability to design a handgun so that it will fire only in thehands of an authorized user. Other thanthe bearing that product liability might have had in this case, three otherarguments against Beretta were possible. 4 2 (1842). Dix vs. [on-line]. By 196 , "implied warranties" rendered theprivity requirement largely obsolete. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897 (Cal. The DOJ Report statesthat defendants in products liability cases won about 6 % of the jurytrials. At about the same time as Cardozo's opinion cracked the privitybarrier in tort, U.S. The English courtdismissed the driver's lawsuit against the repairman because the driver wasnot a party to the repair contract between the coach owner and therepairman. Thus, because safety agencies cannot regulate gunsafety, the courts remain the only avenue of resort to ensure that firearmsmeet basic safety standards.Dix vs. By the late 195 s, courts began to hold that manufactureradvertising could create an implied contract, or warranty to the customersthat would suffice for purposes of the privity rule. 1916). For other tort cases, however, the privity rule remainedintact. This was not always the case. Beretta, recently decided in Alameda County,California was one of these. It also increases the chances of overcomingmanufacturer defenses because some defenses apply only to one legal theoryand not to another theory.Background on Liability The absolute facts are that product manufacturers, from cigarettes tofirearms are being held accountable for the relative safety of theirproducts. Section B. BuickMotor Co (MacPherson v. It also means that the manufacturer can be heldliable without a showing of negligence. Defects may therefore be introduced into productsthroughout the chain of manufacture and distribution. Buick Motor Ca., 111 N.E. The suit seeksdamages from Beretta U.S.A. The highest court in New York State broadly expanded the scope ofproduct liability law with its landmark decision in MacPherson v. For example, in Merrill et al. Navegar, after factual discovery inthe case was complete, Judge James Warren of the Superior Court for SanFrancisco County dismissed the case against Intratec on summary judgment.This decision by Judge Warren was a stark reversal of an earlier April 1 ,1995 ruling, in which the Court had ruled that a jury could concludeIntratec had acted negligently by selling to the general public an assaultweapon that has no legitimate self-defense or sporting value and that isparticularly well adapted for a military-style assault in which the objectis to disable or kill large numbers of people very rapidly. Navegar, Inc. courts created a limitedexception to the privity rule for "inherently dangerous" products (i.e.,electricity, explosives, highly flammable substances, and poisonous drugs). Raising all three legaltheories maximizes the potential for injured persons to recover punitivedamages -- damages awarded because a manufacturer grossly abused his dutyto provide a safe product. Access toguns, and proper training is quite another matter. Products liability advisory. U.S. Instead, it is astraightforward application of the law of negligent entrustment. Wright, a case in which the driver of a stage coach wasinjured in a accident allegedly caused by the negligence of a repairman whohad worked on the coach (Winterbottom v. v. (1998, November 21). Beretta, unless the prosecution crafts theircomplaints very carefully, they will run afoul of those individuals whorightfully cite the Constitution, in bearing arms, and the advertising ofproducts. the factthat the Dix family settled with the gun owner all but cancels out themeaning of these last three arguments.Trends The suit against Beretta is only one in a number of cases that seekto cause gun manufacturers to be more responsible for their products.These suits seem designed to cause greater awareness and legitimacy ofseveral concerns. Winterbottom v. Kenzo Dix and Michael were playing in Michael's bedroom when Michaelwithdrew to his parents' bedroom to get a 9mm Beretta semi-automatichandgun stored in a bag next to his father's bed. [On-line]. In addition to other claims, the suit alleges that the Beretta 92Compact L used to kill Kenzo is defective because it was not designed toprevent an "unauthorized user" -- a child like Michael Soe, for example --from firing it. Wright, 15 Eng. A 79863). Personal injury law includes the recovery of compensation in relationto injuries and medical conditions in a broad range of compensablesituations. MacPherson v. As a side note,there is also the allegation that a number of these suites are brought toameliorate the intentions of 2nd Amendment advocates. (1995 May 5). In August 1996, a federal court in New York allowed an innovativesuit to proceed against a substantial portion of the gun industry (49manufacturers). Early in America's history, a person injured by a defective productcould not sue the manufacturer of the product because U.S. Henningsen v. On July 17, 1997, the Florida Supreme Court handed down a landmark 7- decision, ruling that a retail gun dealer has a legal duty to refrainfrom selling a firearm to an intoxicated buyer, and is liable for the harmthat results when the buyer then uses the gun to shoot an innocent person. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The removal of the requirement of manufacturer negligence in personalinjury cases further enlarged the scope of a manufacturer's potentialliability. On April 26, 1995, a lawsuit on behalf of Griffin and Lynn Dix, theparents of fifteen-year old Kenzo Dix, was filed in Superior Court inAlameda County, California. Rep. Today, it is common practice for injured persons to rely upon allthree theories -- strict liability, implied contract warranty, andnegligence resulting in a tort -- when they sue. A bullet still remained in thehandgun's firing chamber, however, and when Michael pointed the gun atKenzo and pulled the trigger, Kenzo was killed. Personal injury law is divided, broadly speaking, into commonlaw (and 'modified' common law schemes) and statutory schemes, such asWorkers Compensation and Victims Compensation. Civil jury cases and verdicts in large counties. In that opinion, theeminent American jurist, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, redefined the term"inherently dangerous product" by recognizing that many products aredangerous if they are defective. Product Liability Daily. BerettaIntroduction In the past year, product liability laws have been brought into thespotlight as never before. Corp., the company that defectively designedthe gun used to kill Kenzo. The impetus in these consumer-oriented lawsuits is to compel manufacturers to do their utmost inprotecting consumers, and ultimately themselves. This means that an injuredperson does not need to establish a formal legal relationship with theproducer manufacturer. Product liability law covers the range of remedies available whendefective products cause loss or damage. Along those lines anumber of cities throughout the country, including Philadelphia andChicago, are considering bringing innovative suits against manufacturersunder a nuisance theory, based upon the tobacco lawsuit model. The Court's decision was not based on the factualrecord, but on the Court's conclusion that the law precluded a finding thatIntratec owed the victims of the 1 1 California Street assault a legalduty. courts followed the English rule established inWinterbottom v. Unlike other suits, there is the allegation here of publicnuisance. The city of New Orleans has recently filed a lawsuit against thegun making industry, under product liability law (Anti-gun lawsuits, 1998). Greenman v. When lawsuits make policy. Some people may ask whygun makers and sellers should be held to a higher level of accountabilitythan other businesses. Beretta There have been a number of liability suits against so-callednegligent gun manufacturers, dealers and owners, brought by the LegalAction Project. Kenzo Dix was unintentionally shot by hisfourteen-year old friend Michael (Dix vs. 1963). This "implied warranty guaranteed aproduct's suitability for its intended use and made the manufacturerresponsible for the safety of its product, even in the absence ofnegligence by the manufacturer. Buick Motor Co, 1916). In West Virginia, on the other hand, the standardemployed is whether the product was not reasonably safe for its intendeduse based upon what a reasonably prudent manufacturer's standards shouldhave been at the time that the product was manufactured (Tobacco: Attemptsto hold..., 1995). Navegar, 1997). Bycontrast, awards in automobile cases amounted to 18.6% of the total ($5 2million), and awards in contract cases amounted to 3 .3% of the total ($82 million). v. These were dangerousinstrumentality, intervening negligence, and control of access. Along these lines, the city of Chicago is seeking $433 million incompensation for gun related costs incurred since 1994 by the police, theemergency services, the criminal justice system, and the Cook CountyHospital. Attorneys-general from all but four American states unveiled a$2 6 billion deal with tobacco companies to settle all lawsuits againstthem (When lawsuits make policy, 1998). App. Bureauof Justice Statistics Special Report, United States Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, NCJ-154346. CORP., (Alameda County Superior Court, CaseNo. The jury also decided that the only significant cause ofnegligence was the negligence of the gun's owner and his son. Soon thereafter,"strict liability" for bodily injuries caused by defective products waswidely adopted throughout the United States. Merrill et al. v. Thus, the court held that the privity rule did notapply in negligence cases involving products that are dangerous whendefective. For such products, the courts have recognized thatthe price to all consumers should include the cost of compensating thosewho are injured when the products have defects. Available: http://www.handguncontrol.org/c-index.htm Tobacco: Attempts to Hold Tobacco Firms Liable for Costs Lose Groundin Florida. Some states have rejected the "unreasonably dangerous" test andonly require that the injured person prove that there was a defect in thedesign and that the defective product caused injury (Products liabilityadvisory, 1998). Under this rationale, the court imposedliability on a negligent car manufacturer for injuries a car ownersustained when a defective wheel caused an accident - even though themanufacturer, who sold the car to a retailer, had no direct relationshipwith the car owner. Business Law and Product Liability: Dix vs. courts did notrecognize the existence of any legal relationship between a manufacturerand a product user. Thus, the courteliminated the requirement of manufacturer negligence. Beretta, 1998). Yuba Power Products, Inc. In 196 , the New Jersey Supreme Court virtually eliminated the formalprivity-of-contract barrier by ruling that manufacturers provided an"implied warranty" to customers with every product sold (Henningsen v.Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 196 ). U.S. (1998, November). In Amchem's wake:Practical considerations in light of recent caselaw limiting productsliability class actions 2. The Economist, 28-29. Underthat doctrine, a person who entrusts a dangerous instrument, such as afirearm, to another whom that person knows or has reason to know to be adanger to themselves or others, will be liable for the resulting harm.Conclusion Many of the common perceptions about product liability issues werecontradicted in the recently released United States Department of Justice("DOJ") survey of civil legal cases in the 75 largest counties in theUnited States for the year 1992 (DOJ report, 1992). This landmark chapter in modern U.S. 196 ). Available:kkirkpatrick@alston.com. Tort law provides the rules for determining whether aperson has acted negligently towards someone to whom he owes a duty ofcase, independent of any contract, and whether that negligence causedinjury or property damage to others. 1 5 (N.Y. Ct. The suit also brought claims againstMichael's father and step-mother, who allowed him to have access to theirhandgun. Defects in products includedesign defects, manufacturing defects and instructional defects such asinadequate labeling, instructions for use or warnings which render theproduct dangerous. In addition, there have beenfierce battles for "reform" of products liability law in the United StatesCongress, and numerous state legislatures have attempted to rewrite commonlaw by enacting statutory limitations on products liability. 75 681-9). These could be enumerated as; demanding safer gundesigns, holding handgun manufacturers accountable for weapons of massdestruction, holding gun dealers accountable for high-risk gun sales, andholding people accountable for negligent storage of guns. The Economist, 17-18. The courts ruled that manufacturers of "inherently dangerous" products hada greater duty of care that protected the foreseeable ultimate users of aproduct, as well as the immediate purchaser who might resell the product.Thus, a negligent manufacturer will be responsible for injuries to allusers irrespective of whether there was formal privity between the user andthe manufacturer. There are some significant variations in the standard from state tostate. Contract law provides the rules for ascertaining the legalresponsibilities of parties to formal agreements, including contracts forthe sale of goods. The state's gun retailers can no longer sell their lethalproducts to high-risk persons and then walk away." As the Florida Supreme Court recognized, the Kitchen decision is notbased on a radical extension of negligence principles. The total amountawarded to product liability plaintiffs ($1 3 million) was 3.8% of theamount awarded in all of the cases decided by juries ($2.7 billion). (1998, November 1). However, guns were specificallyexempted from the CPSC's jurisdiction, by statute. Beretta U.S.A. The safety of consumer products is generally protected by theConsumer Product Safety Commission. courts today recognize that manufacturers are "strictly liable"for personal injuries caused by defects if their products are generally orinherently dangerous. Wright, 1842). The parents settled these claims for $1 , . (In Re 1 1 California StreetLitigation) (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, DivisionTwo, No. Inregard to cases like Dix vs. The court ruled that this lack of a legal relationship, or"privity," between the repairman and the driver meant that the repairmanwas not legally responsible for the driver's injury in contract (becausethe driver was not party to the contract), or tort (because the court ruledthat the repairman did not owe a duty of care to the driver). The main argument brought by the attorney's for Dix was negligence.It was alleged that the gun manufacturer could and should have foreseen thedangers inherent in not having their product manufactured as "user"specific. courts also went to work on privity as it related tocontracts. This broad acceptance ofstrict liability theory eventually led to its application in propertydamage actions as well. As a result, manufacturers ofdefective products could be liable in contract despite the absence of aformal contract or a showing of negligence. product liability lawbegan in 1963, with Greenman v. (Greenman v.Yuba Power Products, Inc., 1963). Ostensibly, it seems that the strategy of these suits is to make iteconomically unfeasible for gun manufacturers to produce 'unsafe' weapons. The prosecuting attorney summed up by stating that "Kenzo Dixdied as a result of a foreseeable misuse of Beretta's defect design." This case however is not like the suits filed against the cigarettecompanies in that gun use is completely voluntary preoccupation. At the sametime, products liability laws are continuing to be developed outside theUnited States -- many countries in Europe as well as Japan now haveproducts liability laws.Product liability: Background Product liability law has evolved from two bodies of law: contractsand torts. Newspapers and magazines have featured headlinestories about "huge" products liability awards resulting from such thingsas spilled coffee and bad car paint jobs. The May 6th decision, in contrast to the Court's earlier ruling, alsodismissed the Center's strict-liability claim, which alleged that supplyingthe TEC-9 to the general public is an ultra-hazardous activity (Merrill etal. Dix v. In the mid-nineteenth century, U.S. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. In an opinion by the well-respectedjurist, Justice Roger Traynor, the California Supreme Court held thatmanufacturers are "strictly liable" in tort whenever products they place onthe market are defective and cause bodily injury. February 1998.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject