The Law of Torts, Products and Service Liability Law - Assignment Example

?According to Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), a tort can be described as a civil wrong not arising from a contract and in the case of negligence, one should owe duty care to the neighbor. Each parson owes a duty care to his or her neighbor and should make sure that their actions are not harmful to other people around. Cooke (2010) posits to the effect that the plaintiff should prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that he has suffered a civil injustice such as injury, loss of employment or income as a result of the defendant’s action. Remedies can only be given in form of compensation if he court can prove that the plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the action of the defendant. Against this background, this essay seeks to critically analyse the cases of Haimes v Temple University Hospital [1981] and the Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1998]. Based on the law of torts and product and service liability laws, the essay seeks to compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits. The paper will also evaluate aspects related to the facts, issues, judgment, as well as ethical issue related to the two cases. A summary of the main points discussed will be given at the end of the essay. In the case of Haimes v. Temple University Hospital [1981] it can be noted that much of the plaintiff's testimony concerned her psychic activities and her inability to practice these activities following the CT scan. To read an aura, according to plaintiff, it is necessary to go into an altered state, a state of deep concentration. She complains that her psychic activities have been negatively impacted and she can no longer perform the tasks she used to do. It can be seen that this affected the occupation of the plaintiff and this is the reason why she got a favourable judgement. The jury gave the verdict in the amount of $600 000 which included Dr. Haimes loss of a consortium. In view of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, the verdict was molded to include delay damages of $386,465.75 and this brought the total award to $986,465.75. However, the motion for a new trial of the hospital and the doctor was granted given that the verdict was considered as grossly excessive as to shock the court’s sense of justice. In the case of Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1997], the employee sustained a back injury at work and she was not permitted to return to work by the employer as a result of specific restrictions. She then appealed and punitive damages were awarded as a result of the unlawful termination of her employment. However, the punitive damages were found to be excessive since they did not corroborate with the actual harm as well as termination of employment suffered by the plaintiff. A closer analysis of the case shows that the appellee was treated badly by the appellant, and that the appellant should have to pay her a fair amount of damages. In this case, the appelle was awarded $ 293,866.00 in compensatory and noneconomic damages for missing essentially four weeks of work as well as other related ill-treatment she received. However, an award of $ 2,232,740 is considered as too much. From the above cases, it can be noted that in order to prove the existence of day care duty, some conditions should prevail where a defendant can be taken to court if this duty is breached. Thus, the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), suggests that the following conditions should prevail in order for the plaintiff to win the case and these include: foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. Terry & Giugni (2009) concurs with this notion when he says that the following elements should be proved by the plaintiff in order to be successful in winning the claim. There is need to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, this duty has been breached by falling below expected standards, the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer physical or economic harm (causation) and the injury suffered was remote or foreseeable. However, it is not always easy to prove that the duty care existed and has been breached. In some cases it may not always be the case that a duty of care exists. Against this background, it can be seen that the tort laws are specifically designed to ensure that justice prevails between the person who has been wronged and the one accused of wrongdoing. In both cases, one notable similarity is that the tort law is applicable given that the plaintiffs suffered some form of injury and their occupations were somehow affected as a result of the actions of the defendants. However, the judgments were favorable to the plaintiffs and it can be seen that they were excessive. Therefore, the defendants have appealed against the judgments and new trials have been reserved. Indeed, the plaintiffs suffered some form of harm as outlined in both cases above. However, the remedies offered as compensation are punitive given that they are excessive. In the US, a trial court has the discretion to give another new trial on the basis of the level of excess of the verdict. Thus, the appellate court considers the following elements in order to check if the court has not abused its duties: the intensity of the harm, was the injury presented as physical evidence or testimony, has the injury healed or did it permanently affect the plaintiff, the ability of the plaintiff to continue working as well as the level of the verdict. The aim is to ensure that justice prevails among the defendant and the plaintiff. For instance, in the case of Haimes v Temple University Hospital [1981], it has been held that the verdict is excessive the need to set a new date for trial. According to Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. 586, 493 A.2d 669 (1985 cited in Vandevender V. Sheetz, Inc 1997 ), a new trial should be awarded only if the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. The granting of the new trial will be meant to rectify the situation. In this particular case, the defendants argued that the compensable damages suffered by the plaintiff are those that occurred immediately and shortly after the dye was administered and these included nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, constricture of the throat. This did not prevent the plaintiff from seeing another physician and it is held that the harm suffered was not permanent. The defendants also argued that proper court proceedings were not followed and the court erred in allowing evidence from certain witnesses. It can therefore be noted that the judge did not make an appropriate decision based on the applicable laws controlling the case given that certain court procedures were not properly followed. In the case of Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1997], the defendant was given punitive measures and these were taken into consideration by the court of law in reviewing the status of the outcome of the case. Legally, punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship between the harm likely caused by the defendant’s conduct as well as the level of compensation offered to the plaintiff. If the damage is small, then the compensation should also be small and vice versa. According to the United States Supreme Court clause stated in BMW, of the Fourteenth Amendment, “the state is prohibited from imposing a "grossly excessive" punishment on a tortfeasor." This is illustrated in the case of Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 454, 125 L. Ed. 2d 366, 113 S. Ct. 2711 (1993 as cited in Vandevender V. Sheetz, Inc 1997) in which the plaintiff brought a suit against the automobile manufacturer where $4 000 was offered as compensatory damages to the plaintiff as well as $4 000 000 as punitive damages. The US Supreme Court intervened by advising that the punitive damages be lowered to $2 000 000. It has also been observed that to a certain extent, the judge did not make a proper judgment given that it was impartial and driven by elements of greediness. In the US, the constitutional law mainly derives from the country’s Universal Declaration of Independence of 1776 (cited in Vandevender V. Sheetz, Inc 1997) which suggests that every human being is born with equal and inalienable rights. This notion is also supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. Article 8 of the UDHR states that everyone has a right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for violating the rights granted by the law while article 10 states that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Therefore, it can be seen that the law is specifically meant to represent the interests of both the plaintiff and the defendant. For instance, the Human Rights Act in the US provides that a court may order "other legal and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate" for violations of human rights. For instance, in Dobson v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 188 W.Va. 17, 24, 422 S.E.2d 494, 501 (1992 cited in Vandevender V. Sheetz, Inc 1997), damages can be recovered in a tort depending on the magnitude of the case. Punitive damages are allowed in Harless cases but do not constitute an element under the Human Rights Act. The above mentioned cases under discussion fall under the Human Rights Act as well as the Workers Compensation Act hence punitive damages may be excessive given the intensity of the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. It seems that there is no close relationship between the damages awarded to the plaintiffs and the harm they have suffered. Indeed, reasonable amounts in both cases should have been awarded as compensation in order to ensure the credibility of the justice system. This is the reason why it can be said that a new trial date has to be set in order to ensure that justice prevails between the parties involved in the given cases. Basically, the aspect of ethics is mainly concerned with making a distinction between something that is good from bad. The elements of truthfulness, fairness and being honest are considered as the basic tenets in various issues related to ethics. When ethics are applied to the cases discussed above, it can be noted that in both cases, the ethical principles were not fully upheld given that the judgments were one sided. It has been seen that both judgments were in favour of the plaintiffs and punitive awards were given. However, a critical analysis of the cases shows that normal awards were necessary as compensation rather than punitive measures and this move has compelled the court of appeals to reserve a new date for trial in both cases. Therefore, it can be seen that the judges in both cases were not fair enough in passing their judgments which is against the constitutional law which states that everyone has a right to get fair trial in any court proceeding. Basically, the operations of any given business are shaped by its ethical code of conduct. If this code of conduct is violated, an organisation is likely to lose its credibility. It can also be observed that ethical issues are closely related to legal issues in various ways. They are based on the same principles namely: honesty, equality, truthfulness and fairness. These principles shape the conduct of legal practitioners in the dispensation of their duties. Failure to uphold these principles can result in people losing confidence especially in the judicial system. The judiciary is seen as the highest arbiter of any disputes that may exist among the citizens. Therefore, this important institution in any given society should operate in an impartial way in order to be treated as credible. It is also important for the citizens to have confidence in their justice system in order to create peace and tranquility. If people lose confidence in these important institutions, this may cause anarchy in a country given that they will not respect the verdicts given by the courts of law. This may also lead to difficulties in governing the people who do not have respect for the rule of law. It can therefore be seen that the concepts of ethics are closely related to the aspect of legal issues since they are based on the same tenets. These principles ought to be upheld in order to ensure the effectiveness of the legal practitioners in dispensing their duties. In my own opinion, I think the lawsuits in these cases are frivolous given that they are not related to the real facts obtaining on the ground. Indeed, lawsuits for torts in both cases are applicable but the extent to which they have been applied is grossly excessive. Reasonable awards should have been given as compensation in both cases given that it cannot be disputed that that the plaintiffs have suffered some form of harm as a result of the actions of the defendants. In the case of Haimes v. Temple University Hospital [1981], it can be seen that the harm she has suffered can be attributed to the immediate feelings experienced after the CT scan and this cannot be said to be permanent. Therefore, she deserved to get remedies that were commensurate with the level of the harm suffered. However, it may be farfetched for her to claim that this scan has permanently affected her psychic occupation for life. The other reason why I think the first case is frivolous is that the judgment passed was mainly influenced by testimonies given by the witnesses drawn from the plaintiff’s side. There was no equal representation in this particular case. On the other hand, I also think that in the second case the facts have been exaggerated in order to gain large sums of money. In such a case, a reasonable amount should have been offered as compensation given that the harm experienced by both plaintiffs is not extremely severe. The judgments in both cases were flawed and that is the reason why I strongly believe that the cases are frivolous. Under normal circumstances, tort cases do not usually attract such huge sums of money since the tort laws are specifically designed to ensure that disputes are solved in a peaceful manner which is satisfactory to the parties involved. Once the judgment given is a source of dispute in itself, then it defies the logic of the law itself. I strongly believe that any judgment given in a tort lawsuit should reflect the interests of both parties involved and should not be one sided as shown in these two cases discussed above. In order to prevent such cases in an organisation, it is imperative to design policies that are meant to ensure that the safety of the employees as well as any person within the premises is guaranteed. Safety precautions should always be taken by the responsible authorities in an organisation in order to ensure that there is no person likely to be harmed whilst under their custody. The responsible authorities should always ensure that the environment in the organisation is safe to avoid lawsuits in the event of injury or economic loss. Measures should also be put in place in order to ensure that people who may be injured while at work are given fair treatment. For instance, their employment should not be terminated immediately before assessing the severity of the harm. A person who is not badly injured can be offered to go on paid sick leave pending reinstatement upon full recovery. On the other hand, a person who has been seriously injured should be given reasonable compensation since he or she may not be able to work again. The organisation should not wait for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit in the court but should be in a position to take action that is meant to solve the case in an amicable way. There are many advantages of this action such as maintaining the good reputation and image of the company. Over and above, a tort can be described as a civil wrong arising from the actions of the neighbor which can be considered as harmful. Therefore, each parson owes a duty care to his or her neighbor and should make sure that their actions are not harmful to other people around. In order for the plaintiff to win the case in court, the following elements should prevail: the action should be foreseeable, aspects of proximity as well as reasonability should also be take into consideration. A critical analysis of the two cases of Haimes v Temple University Hospital [1981] and the Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1998] showed that somehow they fulfilled these elements but the judgments given in both cases have been criticised given that they are punitive. As noted in the discussion, the monitory awards offered are not commensurate with the harm suffered by the plaintiffs given that they are grossly excessive. This brings us to the important element of ethical considerations especially in the legal fraternity. Failure to uphold ethical considerations can discredit the judicial system in a given country. In order to avoid such cases, it is important for everyone to ensure that his or her actions are not harmful to the next person. Bibliography Cooke, J. Law of Tort. London. Pearson. Capiro Industries V. Dickman (1990) Retrieved from http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CAPARO_1.pdf Company appealing award – Worker alleged discrimination and retaliation by chain. (1997, August 5). Charleston Daily Mail (West Virginia), p. P5B.) Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords. Retrieved from http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20abcd/donoghue_v_Stevenson.htm Elliott & Quinn (2008) Tort Law, Pearson, London Haimes v. Temple University Hospital, No. 4408, 1986 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 375; 39 Pa. D. & C.3d 381(D. Pa. Aug. 7, 1986). Locy, T. (1986, March 28). Lawyer sees $1m in psychic’s future. Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/keyword/psychic-powers) Negligence: duty of care and breach of duty, Retrieved from http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/tort/tort_ch3.pdf Terry A. & Giugni D. (2009). Business and the law. 5th Edition. Cengage Learning Australia. United Nations Department of Public Information, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Vandevender v. Sheetz, Inc., No. 23463, 1997 200 W.Va. 591; 490 S.E. 2d 678; 1997 W. Va. Lexis 155(W. Va. Feb. 4, 1997). Read More