Products Liability Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Products Liability - seek Paper ExampleComp whatsoever description The hybridisation Motor Company is oneness of the leading manufacturers of vehicles and has a strong position in the global automotive market. The company widely engages in the development, manufacturing, distribution and assistance of vehicles, parts and their accessories. intersection corporate philosophy of stable improvement powerfully contributes to its immense achievement. The company endeavors to nurture its car products to appeal to its customers both buyers and potential buyers. At present, it concentrates on an ad vanguardced generation of consumers and creating stronger ties with this youthful market. As a result of its novel strategy, Ford has created a new line of vehicles, targeting the generation of cool and Ford main competitors include Toyota motor Company and GM motors (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, gaucherie Academy of Engineering, 2004). The product safety issue th at led to the lawsuit Ford Motor Company was tardily involved in an separatrix involving a 15 passenger Ford F-350 Econoline Van. Information shows that the van skidded slay northbound inter express 5 in Kern County after the tread separated on its hobo right tire. It becomes evident that evidence from the trial testified that the Ford officials had earlier on been contacted by the Goodyear Tire and caoutchouc Company and knew that the product was defective, but the company officials never made any effort to conduct its dealers or its customers. Further evidence also shows that one of the men killed in the rollover was not wearing a john belt during the accident. The panel also found that it would not have mattered in a crash in which the van rolled over four times while travelling at 70 miles per hour. Ford was then assessed with 59 percent comparative fault. It was also assessed $50,000,000 in punitive damages as a result of the accident (Steering Committee on Product Liabil ity and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The legal theories use by the plaintiff to recover in this lawsuit, how the lawsuit was resolved, and why you agree with the decision in the case The legal theory applied in the above case is product liability and negligence. The theory states that any injuries, death or any loss which may be as a result of a person or entitys negligence to fulfill any legal duty owed to another may be responsible for the act. These injuries are based on the legal theory of product liability and negligence and for one to establish a legal claim for negligence, it is required that the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a legal duty, the defendant breached that duty and this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff injuries and the plaintiff was injured or even damaged in one way or the other. While laws may differ from state to state, deaths or injuries may be imposed for negligence (Birsch & Fielder, 2004). For instance, Kris ti D. Roofer one of the plaintiffs sued the company over the manufacturers who sold the van which was involved in that accident as Ford failed to establish that no genuine issue of corporal fact exists. The lawsuit argues that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous and ultimately caused the death of the passengers. The defendant is charge of negligence for failing to design and manufacture a crashworthy vehicle and with proper seat belts to reduce accident deaths