Product Liability and Intentional Tort - Essay Example

The rationale for placing high liability on the sellers and manufacturers regardless of the nature of defect is that such parties are better placed to bear the cost implications of compensation. In this case, it is argued that product manufacturers and sellers can cushion themselves against losses resulting from product defects by increasing the product’s prices. Due to lack of a federal law governing product liability, the precedence for liability torts is derived from various state laws and court rulings on the general tort law.

The admissibility of Chase’s case for product liability can be established by examining the threshold requirements for product liability cases and relevant court rulings. According to the Indiana Law Review, the following mandatory threshold requirements exist for a case to qualify for product liability; a product’s user/claimant who is subject to injury by the product, product’s manufacturer or seller/defendant, faulty product that is considered as unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or consumer’s property, a product reaching the consumer without alteration to its initial state and physical harm resulting from the product (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 2011:1378).

Irrespective of the relevant product liability theories involved in the case, Chase’s case should meet the above criteria to qualify for admissibility (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 2011:1378). An examination of the theories upon which the product liability law is based provides insight to this hypothetical scenario. Under the theory of negligence, the manufacturer of the paper shredding machine is not liable for Chase’s injuries since there was no negligence on the manufacturer’s part or failure to remove foreseeable risk of injury to the machine’s user (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 2011:1382).

In this case, the injuries incurred were as a result of negligence by the user arising from failure to read and adhere to the manufacturer’s instructions. However, the machine’s manufacturer can be held liable for Chase’s injury on the basis of the duty to warn the user against a foreseeable risk of injury by the machine (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 2011:1383). The manufacturer’s liability to provide warning to the user and whether the operation instructions were sufficient to protect Chase from injuries can be established by examining other factors like the value of the warning.

In this case, the manufacturer of the paper shredding machine had the duty to provide adequate warning regarding the dangers of personal harm incase the machine is operated without lubricating oil. Under negligence rule, Chase should prove that the injuries sustained occurred despite having observed the necessary duty of care (Fischer, 2009:7). Product liability requires the injured party; Chase to demonstrate the harm-causation relationship and whether there was any breach of duty if there was any negligence by the manufacturer (Fischer, 2009:7).

Though there was concrete harm on the part of Chase and the nature of causation passes the necessary “but-for” test which seeks to establish whether the harm would have otherwise occurred, the burden of proof for the manufacturer’s failure to observe the necessary duty of care lies with Chase. In this case, it is less likely for Chase to be compensated by the paper shreddi