Analysis of Brians and Alberts Tort and Jamess Dismissal and Subsequent Recourse - Case Study Example

Law in Business: A Case Study Analysis Word Count: Pt. I: 1360. Pt II: 640. Total: 2000. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. With Regard to Brian’s and Albert’s Tort Case…………………………3 II. James’s Dismissal and Subsequent Recourse……………………………7 In advising Cretins Ltd., the following is an analysis of what happened and: i) what the outcome should be for the injuries sustained by Brian and Albert at the skating rink on 29th October; and ii) what the implications are for the dismissal of James. I. With Regard to Brian’s and Albert’s Tort Case Product liability is a problem that needs to be solved in the UK. “Personal injury is a broad umbrella term that encapsulates many more subspecialties of law practice. While some lawyers of other disciplines occasionally take on personal-injury cases that appear promising, many focus on one or more specialty within the field” (“Product Liability Editor’s Picks,” 2009). In the UK, “Product liability law defines a defective product as existing when the safety of the product is below that which consumers are entitled to expect…The standard of proof required by the court is such that the person claiming compensation must be able to show…that the defect in the product caused the injury or damage” (“UK Product Liability Law,” 2009). Albert went into Cretins to buy a pair of roller skates for his son, Brian, as a birthday present. Obviously he was not expecting what would come next. In one case of product liability, “[an individual] helped his mother attach [a] product to his younger brothers pushchair. One of the elastic straps slipped and lashed back. The buckle attached to the elastic strap hit him in the eye causing serious, permanent damage. The claimant sued Mothercare, the supplier of the product, claiming damages in negligence and also under the Consumer Protection Act” (“Abouzaid v. Mothercare (UK) Ltd.,” 2009). Brian is a budding semi-professional roller skater, and ha been practising for a national roller skating competition in which he was the favourite to win a 5000-pound prize. Albert asked James (Phillip’s younger brother and sales associate at Cretins Ltd.) whether the store had any skates suitable for semi-professional skating. James recommended a pair of “High Roll” skates, made by Crank of New Zealand. The skates were purchased by Albert for a sum of 350 pounds. On the 29th of October, Albert gave Brian the skates. Brian went to the rink to practise. Albert also put on skates and joined him. Brian was doing a complicated manoeuvre. At the end of completing the manoeuvre, something went wrong with one skate. Brian fell. Not only did Brian fall, but he brought his father down with him. Brain sustained a broken ankle, which would prevent him from skating for a year—while Albert sustained a broken arm in the accident. This is an incidence of where product liability would come into play. “Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner” (“Product Liability—US,” 2009). At first Cretins denied there was anything wrong with the skates. Upon further expert investigation, however, it was determined that the wheel mountings of one skate had fractured. There are multiple possibilities. “Products liability law consists of a mixture of tort law and contract law…Aspects that relate to contract law relate mostly to the laws governing warranties. Because this area of law is really hybrid in nature, a plaintiff may assert a number of possible claims” (“Product Liability: Background,” 2009). Then the store insisted that the responsibility lay with Crank. “The experience and skills required in product liability litigation - including the ability to absorb and cross-examine on complex scientific and statistical issues; and familiarity with the procedural requirements of multi-party litigation—are equally applicable in related forms of litigation, in particular health and safety” (“Product Liability,” 2009). Nonetheless, the other two directors of Cretins Ltd. (not Phillip, but Joan and Mike) fired James, Phillip’s younger brother. “The Consumer Protection Act of 1987, which incorporates the European Product Safety Directive, was introduced to make the process of pursuing product liability claims far simpler. Under this act, consumers are able to make a product liability claim against a manufacturer of a product that could be shown to have caused you personal injury” (“An Overview of Product Liability Law,” 2009). Product liability law was introduced in the EU to protect its citizens. Product liability law was “…transposed the EU Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC into UK Law. This Act gives people injured by defective products the right to sue for financial compensation for any injury/damage they suffer” (“Product Liability,” 2009). First of all, with regard to Brian’s injuries, Brian is entitled to certain personal injury (torts) damages, as is Albert. Albert should be definitely refunded the 350 pounds he spent at Cretins Ltd. Secondly, it is the responsibility of Crank, the manufacturer from New Zealand, to answer for their faulty product. Although Cretins Ltd. sold the fault product, their company is a limited liability company. Thusly, any kind of liability for injury falls squarely on the shoulders of the issuing company having provided the skates. Although Cretins Ltd. sold the product, Cretins Ltd. does not have liability for the product being fault because that is an issue with the manufacturer. Since Cretins Ltd. is “…a business in the UK, it [would have been] wise to take out Public Liability Insurance” (“Public Liability Insurance for Businesses,” 2009). Since the expert investigation revealed that the wheel mountings on one skate had fractured, this is clearly an issue of product liability. It is not James’s fault, therefore. Nor could James have necessarily known, even though he was innocently selling the product advertised, that one of the skates was defective—except perhaps upon close inspection. If that was indeed part of James’s job description in order to assure quality control, then and only then could James be held responsible for the faulty skate. Ultimately, the people who must take responsibility for this tragedy is the manufacturer, Crank of New Zealand. Crank should ideally pay a sum to Brian totalling one year’s worth of anticipated lost wages as a semi-professional roller skater. Additionally, Crank does not even need to be proven to have been negligent. Actually, “…people who are injured by defective products can sue for compensation without having to prove the producer negligent, provided that they can prove that the product was defective and the defect in the product caused the injury” (“Product Liability, Defective Products, Unsafe Products Fact Sheet,” 2009). With regards to both Brian’s and Albert’s injuries, Crank should offer to pay any medical expenses, including doctor visits. Cretins Ltd., although it initially denied there was anything wrong with the skates, is still not at fault even though the skates they sold were faulty. However, Cretins Ltd. could be sued on the grounds that it did not react in a proper manner to the situation. “Failure of companies to respond quickly and fully when they become knowledgeable of inherent defects in their products; failing to adequately warn consumers of the product’s lack of safety, which is negligent” (“Product Liability Claim & Defective Products Compensation,” 2009). Cretins Ltd. should have purchased product liability insurance. “Product liability insurance is meant for all companies that sell products” (“What Are the Different Types of UK Liability Insurance?”, 2009). However, since Cretins Ltd. did not make the product, they would most likely not be liable. “A person and/or company cannot be held responsible for…injuries if: they did not supply the product (e.g. counterfeit items bearing the manufacturers name)” (“Product Liability Compensation Claims,” 2009). Inevitably, however, Cretins Ltd. could still be sued due to the injuries sustained by Brian and Albert. “Anyone who is injured as a result of using a product supplied by you or a product using a component made by your business - even if they didnt buy it themselves - can take out a lawsuit against you, in some cases even up to 10 years after the product was sold” (“What is Product Liability Insurance?”, 2009). Brian and Albert, depending on the nature of their wounds, could also sue Crank for undue stress and emotional pain caused by the traumatic incident in the roller rink. II. James’s Dismissal and Subsequent Recourse With regard to James’s dismissal, the two directors of Cretins Ltd. could be sued on the grounds that they fired an employee without having sufficient reason to do so. James was simply an arbiter of goods. James did not manufacture the product. Ultimately, “Manufacturers are responsible for products sold to consumers and the safety of their customers is paramount. You should seek advice if a defective product has caused you personal injury as you may be entitled to claim compensation” (“The Four Main Types of Product Liability Claim,” 2009). If anyone should have been responsible for the product being unsafe, it should have been up to Cretins Ltd. to have a quality control manager to check the suitability of all the products before they could be put on the shelves. Technically, in this respect, Cretins Ltd. could be liable, and not Crank from New Zealand. James might have grounds for suing Cretins Ltd., therefore, for lost wages from the time he was dismissed up till now. James has the right to sue. James could sue Cretin Ltd. for quite a bit of money. In this case, Cretin Ltd. had better have liability insurance. If Cretin does not have liability insurance, the company may be in deep trouble. Mainly, the people who would be in trouble with James would be the two main directors besides Phillip, Joan and Mike. Because Phillip is James’s brother and he had no part in dismissing James, obviously he would not be liable. However, Phillip’s partners would be liable. In addition, Phillip could possibly take Joan and Mike to court for wanting to take him off of the board of directors. This would constitute some type of fraudulent activity. The fact that Joan and Mike were worried about legal action being taken against them signifies that something was amiss. Obviously, they are both at fault for having dismissed James without thinking clearly. Evidently, if the debacle about selling the faulty skate really was James’s fault, James would have probably been a quality control manager. However, since James held no such function, the fact that he was dismissed was completely uncalled for. Thus, not only is Cretins Ltd. potentially liable for selling a faulty product—which would implicate all of the board of directors—but Cretins Ltd. is also now responsible for having dismissed one of its workers without due process or probable cause. The dismissal would have been understandable if James had had something to do with the fact that the product was faulty. However, the burden of the companies to provide safe products falls squarely on the shoulders of both Cretins Ltd. and Crank (the New Zealand company that produced the faulty roller skate). So, the liability for the skate being faulty could either lie with Cretins Ltd. or Crank or both companies. It really depends on whether Cretins Ltd. knew the extent to which the products which they promoted were safe. If Cretins Ltd. had some knowledge that their products were not safe because they were not inspected, this could potentially have a negative effect on Cretins Ltd. The outcome depends on whether Cretins Ltd. had some knowledge of the potential for a detective product to be placed on its shelves. If Cretins Ltd. had absolutely no way of knowing if their products (including the faulty skate) were completely safe, then Cretins Ltd. would most likely be absolved. James should also think about suing Cretins Ltd. for emotional pain or undue stress caused by the whole incident. Truly it was not James’s fault that Brian’s skate was faulty. Therefore, James did not deserve to be dismissed. This is a fact. As such, Cretins Ltd. is liable for damages to be paid to James for his unwarranted dismissal, loss of wages, and any subsequent stress caused by the matter. REFERENCES Abouzaid v. Mothercare (UK) Ltd. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.tradeangles.fsbusiness.co.uk/articles/product_liability.htm. The four main types of product liability claim (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.firstpersonalinjury.co.uk/defective-products-and-product-liability-claims.html. An overview of product liability law. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.youclaim.co.uk/product-liability-law.htm. Product liability. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.dolceta.eu/united-kingdom/Mod3/spip.php?rubrique21. Product liability. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.fountaincourt.co.uk/practice-areas/product-liability/. Product liability’s editor’s picks. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.ehow.co.uk/product-liability/. Product liability: background. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://injury.findlaw.com/defective-dangerous-products/defective-dangerous-products- law/product-liability-background.html. Product liability claim & defective products compensation. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.mugomilk.co.uk/product_liability.htm. Product liability compensation claims. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.claims4free.co.uk/claim/product_liability.php. Product liability, defective products, unsafe products fact sheet. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38253.html. Product liability—US. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.hg.org/product-liability.html. Public liability insurance for businesses. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.directlineforbusiness.co.uk/. UK product liability law. (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.shopnice.com/product_liability_law.html. What are the different types of UK liability insurance? (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.economywatch.com/insurance/liability/uk.html. What is product liability insurance? (2009). Retrieved online from: http://www.know-insurance.co.uk/business/liability_insurance/product_liability_insurance.htm. Read More