Business Law: argument as defendant - Essay Example

Business Law Sarah is legally wronged on a number of counts, but not under breach of express warranties of fitness and merchantability; she is the victim in this scenario according to tort law and the theories of negligence or the implied fitness and merchantability of the pot-hole truck fitted without a back-up alarm. From a legal point of view she is entitled to be the plaintiff in a case against the City of Albany because they did not fit a back-up alarm but not in a case against the manufacturer, distributor or modifier of the pot-hole truck.

ACME manufactured the truck with no implications for its future use and although the failure to install a back-up alarm in addition to its manufacturing of the standard truck components of cab and chassis may have led to Sarah being hurt, this manufacturer is too far removed from the scenario to have its manufactures break tort or liability law. If ACME had sold its truck directly to the City of Albany this scenario may be altered, however the point being that ACME merely installed the base components and these future use in a busy urban environment where a back-up alarm becomes more necessary to avoid injury, is not ACME's responsibility.

Similarly, Keefer Motors, as the distributor of the generic truck has not entered into any contract, implicit or explicit, concerning the intended use of the pot-hole truck. Following a hard winter in New York, the Keefer Motors contract with the City of Albany, has no relevance to the events that led to Sarah's injury whilst working as an employee in New York. If Keefer Motors had not sold the truck unchanged to the City of Albany but had changed the truck, the City of Albany might become less negligent because at that stage the truck's intended use as a pot-hole truck might be nearing criminal liability under strict liability law.

The laws covering negligence and express warranty are not applicable in this case, however the implied warranty of this truck's fitness as a pot-hole truck is legally admissible; with knowledge of the truck's purpose as a pot-hole truck, Keefer Motors may have been unsuccessful against Sarah, but without it there is no case to answer. Susan's Truck Equipment's contract with the City of Albany to change the generic truck into a pot-hole truck fulfils the above requirement, but Sarah's argument is strongest against the City of Albany who, as her employer, has a duty of care towards Sarah.

Susan's Truck Equipment must supply a safe truck but I believe that the acceptance by the City of Albany of this truck does not make STE liable under strict liability for alterations to a dangerous or defective truck. After all, STE carried out its instructions given by the City of Albany; Sarah should not sue Susan's Truck equipment because it failed to inform the defendants, the City of Albany, of the necessity of fitting a back-up alarm on a truck that was intended to fill the potholes in the city.

The City of Albany failed to install a back-up alarm and therefore makes itself liable under strict liability since the truck was used as a pot-hole truck. Sarah's injury at the hands of another city employee, Emma, made the truck dangerous and defective and this means that the City of Albany is negligent. If the accident had not occurred negligence would still have occurred and this is also regardless of whether the truck continued to be used as a pot-hole truck or in another capacity. The duty of care the City of Albany has towards Emma and Sarah extends to ensuring the installation of the back-up alarm.

The reason for this is that the truck is being used in a busy, urban environment for a potentially hazardous purpose or filling pot-holes. However negligent the City of Albany is, I conclude that it is not guilty under the theories of either implied or express warranty of fitness and merchantability, or strict liability, because these relate to the sale of the product. Emma might also have a case against the City of Albany.