ProductsWeek 3 Discussion - Product Liability, Deceptive Advertising, and Unsafe Products
Refer to Chapter 13 in your course textbook for this discussion.
Respond to the following:
Product liability law grew out of the notion of protecting consumers from deceptive advertisements of products and products that are unsafe and dangerous in the marketplace. Lawsuits for product liability actions are rooted in contract law and tort law. If a business sells a dangerous or defective product that can cause injuries to a customer, it creates a risk for legal action that could cost a lot of money. If a manufacturer's advertising results in deception and a breach of an expressed warranty or implied warrant, legal action can also result.
Research and summarize one (1) type of lawsuit below using the resource links provided. Briefly explain the facts, your understanding of the law, and the decision and reasoning used by the court.
- One (1) breach of warranty lawsuit based on a deceptive advertisement OR one (1) product defect case pursuant to a product design defect, manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn of a defect.
- Imagine you were tasked with defending against a product liability tort action. Briefly explain the three (3) defenses in the reading and which you believe would be the most effective against the lawsuit example you provided and why.
Resources:
- NEXIS-Uni Legal Database.
- Strayer Library Databases.
Be sure to respond to one of your classmates' posts. Please provide answers to the discussion questions that are researched, informed, and substantiated by citing sources following Strayer Writing Standards.
Classmate post:Hello Class,
According to the Federal Trade Commission website, Car Shield was mandated to pay $10 million to settle FTC charges due to deceptive marketing tactics.(1) Car Shield used celebrities to promote the fact that they cover all car repairs. (1) Unfortunately, it was discovered that many repairs were not covered and FTC also alleges that both celebrities and consumers who endorsed Car Shield were making false statements. (1)
Based on this weeks text, the three defenses one could use against a liability tort action are:
1. Misuse or Abnormal Use: Applies when a plaintiff has used a product in a way that was harmful to them despite warnings provided by the defendant/manufacturer. In addition, can apply when a plaintiff has used the product in a manner that the defendant/manufacturer could not anticipate. (2)
2. Contributory Negligence: Traditionally a complete defense to a product liability suit in negligence. An example of when this could be applied is when a plaintiff is using a product for recreational purposes that does not have necessary protections necessary to keep them safe when they are already injured which poses a knowingly higher risk. (2)
Comparative Negligence has been adopted in some states that states that the plaintiffs negligence is not a complete defense. When this happens, it reduces the amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover for damages.(2)
3. Assumption of Risk: This is applied when a plaintiff uses a product that they know is dangerous to use. As an example, if they drive around in a car that they know has a recall is an implied assumption of risk. (2)
When it comes to the Car Shield case, it is very hard to decide. However, I would use comparative negligence. I would make sure to bring up what the plaintiff did to obtain clarification on fine print in the advertisements. It does say that service contracts are on behalf of leading third-party administrators and that programs may vary based on information obtained about the car, such as vehicle use, mileage, state and pre-existing conditions. In addition, states that all claims must be pre-authorized before repairs are made. As a result, making both parties responsible for negligence will help to reduce the amount owed to the plaintiff.
Thanks,
Daisy
Sources:
1. Federal Trade Commission. September 30, 2024. CarShield. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2223031-carshieldLinks to an external site..
2. Jennings, M. M. (2021). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (12th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://strayer.vitalsource.com/books/979821433887...
Week Assignment:
Week 3 Activity - Product Liability Law Case SummaryWeek 3 Activity - Product Liability Law Case SummaryDue: Mon Oct 21, 2024 9:00am10/21/2024
Ungraded, 65 Possible Points65 Points Possible
Attempt
In Progress
NEXT UP: Submit Assignment
Unlimited Attempts Allowed
Available after Sep 29, 2024 12:00am9/29/2024
Overview
In this activity, you review the product liability of a selected case and create a brief that summarizes its legal elements.
Instructions
- Choose a case from the cases presented below:
| Case 1 | Brooks v. Mission Stucco Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5519 (Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three. August 30, 2024, Opinion Filed).https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6CVH-3CY3-RRP2-2508-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=XG7R2Q51703 |
| Case 2 | Gil v. Petco Health & Wellness Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153421, 2024 WL 3949321(United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. August 27, 2024, Filed).https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6CTY-MKV3-S4Y5-355M-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=XG7R2Q51703 |
| Case 3 | Summers v. FCA US LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151320 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. August 23, 2024, Filed).https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6CT3-KB13-RSTK-X37H-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=XG7R2Q51703. |
| Case 4 | Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 129 S. Ct. 1187, 173 L. Ed. 2d 51, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1774, 77 U.S.L.W. 4165, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,176, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 675 (Supreme Court of the United States March 4, 2009, Decided).https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a4VRY-4YV0-TXFX-13DM-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=XG7R2Q51703. |
| Case 5 | Oglesby v. Medtronic, Inc. Medtronic USA, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7138, 2024 WL 1283341 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. March 26, 2024, Filed)https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn%3acontentItem%3a6BN4-SH03-RRVB-S317-00000-00&context=1519360&identityprofileid=XG7R2Q51703 |
- Using the Week 3 Activity Template Download Week 3 Activity Template[DOCX], accurately summarize the following regarding a design defect, a manufacturing defect, and/or a failure-to-warn cause of action in a brief that effectively lays out the following legal elements of the case:
- Case facts.
- Parties and their arguments.
- Proceedings of the court case - what happened in the court(s)?
- The law regarding product liability defect
- The holding of the court and its reason(s).
INSTRUCTIONS
Format
- ting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
| Week 3 Activity - Product Liability Law Case Summary | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| Create a brief that accurately summarizes all specified legal elements presented in the scenario. (100%) | 65 to >58.49 pts Exemplary Created a brief that accurately summarized all specified legal elements presented in the scenario.58.49 to >51.99 pts Competent Created a brief that summarized specified legal elements presented in the scenario but with 1–2 significant errors or omissions.51.99 to >45.49 pts Needs Improvement Created a brief that summarized specified legal elements presented in the scenario, but with 3–5 significant errors or omissions.45.49 to >0 pts Unacceptable Did not submit or did not create a brief or created a brief with more than 5 significant errors or omissions. | / 65 pts |
| Total |