Cause of Action under Strict Product Liability - Assignment Example

Topic: PRODUCT LIABILITY Introduction From the facts of the set of facts and the pleadings in the case of Saner vToys ‘R’.the injured party seek for justice for various causes of action. These causes of action are; Strict Liability Product, as well as a breach of both implied warranty of a particular purpose and merchantability and a claim under negligence. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff bought a stroller for use by a toddler that the plaintiff alleges that it was defective. The plaintiff alleges that out of the defect; the stroller was imbalance, and it tripped of and in the process, the toddler was injured (American Law Institute, 1-6). Cause of Action under Strict Product Liability In strict liability, the manufacturer is held liable even though he/she was not negligent. The court looks on the product itself rather than manufacturers conduct. This is meant to mitigate the harshness that might be if only actions on negligence were to be maintained by a person who suffered under a defective product. This is because there may be no other products in the market with which to compare the expected reasonable standard of behavior. This concept has its foundation in case law most notably the case of Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling Co. In this case, a bottle exploded when it was on hands of a waitress and caused a deep cut on her hand. The solution for this may trace its roots on public policy. A responsibility ought to be whenever it will effectively reduce the dangers to life caused by inherently defective products that are introduced to the market (Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling Co, pp.453-456). In the case at hand, the plaintiffs need not prove that the defendants were negligent but he should indicate the product manufactured by the defendants was defective. Further, plaintiff should show that the defectiveness of the product was the immediate of cause of the injury. From the facts of the case, the stroller had defects that caused the injury to the plaintiff. It, therefore, goes that the defendants are liable under this cause of action. The motion of summary judgment is, therefore, not sustainable. The product need not be unreasonably defective as in the case of breach of implied warranty of merchantability. An important aspect of this cause of action it must be shown that defects outweigh the utility of the product. Any stretch of the imagination cannot argue the stroller imbalance defect outweighed its utility. The defendant should be held liable for an injury caused by a defective product (Voss v Black & Decler Manufacturing Co, paras.3-10). Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Implied warranty of merchantability as used in the sale of goods law refers to an implied warrant that the goods sold are reasonably fit for use in an ordinary manner. This implied warranty acts a guarantee by the seller that the product bought is fit for the purpose (Joseph Wojcik III v Empire Forklift. Inc, para.4). A person suing under this cause of action must show that the goods bought are not reasonably fit for the purpose as implied by the seller. A person who places an extraordinary use to the goods cannot claim under this cause of action. For instance in the above-cited case of Connie Daniel v Ford, an automobile truck was used by the plaintiff to commit suicide. The automobile truck was manufactured and designed by the defendant for the purposes of transport of goods and secure the goods from the elements of weather. It was held that it was not foreseeable by the defendant that anyone would use the automobile truck for purposes of committing suicide. Further, a defect must be one that is unreasonably dangerous to the reasonable use expected of the product. The question that ought to be in our case is whether the plaintiff put the stroller to any use other than one reasonably expected or foreseen by the defendant. The answer to this question is negative. The plaintiff used the stroller for the intended purpose that the plaintiff could foresee. The other question is whether the designer defects were such that the product became unreasonably dangerous. The stroller though dangerous due to its alleged imbalance cannot be said to be unreasonably dangerous as to make the designer defect actionable. A motion for summary judgment ought to be in respect to this cause action against the plaintiff (Connie Daniel v Ford Motor Co. Inc, paras.4-8). Implied Warranty Breach of Fitness Purpose Warranty for fitness for a particular purpose is where a buyer relies on the seller to select goods that to fit a specific purpose as notified by the buyer. It is also captured under the Uniform Sale Act at section 15 and embodies two basic principles. First, the knowledge by the seller the purpose of purchased goods and secondly that the purchaser places reliance of skills and knowledge of the seller. In the case at hand, the defendant manufactured and sold strollers that were to be used by the toddlers. The plaintiff needed not tell them the intended use of their product. The plaintiff claim, therefore, is one that cannot be unless the defendant shows that they had disclaimed liability of accident caused by any latent or patent defect in their products. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code applies to all user of the product and cannot exclude certain people. The defendant is, therefore; hence, the motion of summary judgment should fail (Connie Daniel v Ford Motor Co. Inc, paras.6-14). Cause of Action on Negligence Negligence is a tort that may arise in the case of product liability as a cause of action. The person pleading negligence has to meet and prove all the elements of negligence to have a judgment in his/her favor (White, p.293). The following elements must be proved by the Plaintiff in the case before the court of law. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care. Secondly, he must prove that the defendant breached a duty. Thirdly, he must prove that the plaintiff incurred sufferings due to violation made by the defendant and that the injury is not remote. In the case at hand, was the defendant under a duty of care when it was manufacturing its toy strollers? It cannot be that a manufacturer owes its consumers a duty of care by manufacturing goods that are unlikely to cause injury to them. In the case of Donohue v Stevenson, a plaintiff who bought a product from a retailer could sustain a cause of action on the manufacturer despite lack of privity of contract (Freeman, Michael, and Michael Freeman, and Michael Freeman, p.172). Under Macpherson versus Buick Motors company case, it was decided that the duty of care could extend to all who could suffer injury out of action of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant had to exercise a duty of care towards the Plaintiff. In this case, however, the issue of privity of contract does not arise since the plaintiff bought the goods from the defendant stores (Cardozo, paras.1-2). The other question is whether there was a breach of that duty. The plaintiff claims that the defendant manufactured a defective product and analyzes the defects at paragraph 21. The issues arising out of that paragraph are matters of evidence and cannot be subject of motion of summary judgment. If proved in evidence, these particulars would amount to a breach of care thus proving the second element of a negligence claim. Another breach of duty was failure to inform the plaintiff of the defects that were in the stroller. The plaintiff at paragraph 21 analyzes the various defects that the stroller had. It is therefore crystal clear that the defects were obvious, and the defendant needed not warn the plaintiff of them (Oman, pp.1-8). The third important element to prove is that it is out of the breach that the action causing injury occurred. The plaintiff avers that it is out of the defects that were in the manufactured stroller that caused the accident. The stroller did not have good balance and was, therefore, easy to tip off. In fact, the stroller tipped off, and the plaintiff was injured. Therefore, the injury arose out of a defect in the stroller, and this issue ought to be a motion of summary judgment. The defendant ought to have realized that their products were to be used by children or toddlers under the injury foreseeability issue. The first aspect of foreseeability is as to whether they foresaw that the strollers could be used by the toddlers. The second aspect is whether the defects could cause injuries to users. It was, therefore, upon them to ensure that the product was defect free. The defects outlined in paragraph 21 of the claim speak volume if plaintiff proves them. It shows a clear case of stroller without a balance. The stroller could easily fall, and it is, therefore, safe to conclude that the injury was foreseeable. Going by this definition, the question that will have to be answered by the plaintiff is whether the risk of the toddler falling and being injured by the stroller was reasonably perceivable by the defendant. Due to the imbalance of the stroller and the pleaded fact that the stroller could tip off if the weight of two pounds were added. It means that the defendant knew that the stroller was liable to fall and cause injury. A motion of Summary Judgment cannot, therefore, be on the cause of action of negligence (Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.paras.2-6). Conclusion The defendant claim for summary judgment should, therefore, fail on three causes of action but fail on the cause for action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. A summary judgment can only be where the plaintiff is unable to show clearly that the cause of action exists. In this case, the cause of action with respect to strict product liability has been shown to exist. The stroller was defective, and it is not necessary to prove that it was out of the defendant’s negligence that the defective product emanated. The defective in my view outweigh the utility of the stroller as the defective was capable of defeating the very use of the stroller, and that is to keep the kid safe. With respect to the cause of action on merchantability, the plaintiff has not shown that the stroller is not reasonably fit for the intended purpose of keeping the child safe. On this ground alone, the plaintiff claim must fail, and a summary judgment entered. With respect to the cause of action of breach of implied warranty for fitness for purpose, the defendant needed to show that the plaintiff did not inform them of the intended use of the stroller. The plaintiff did not rely on of the defendant’s skills and judgment. The defendant however did not require to be told of the use, as it is obvious. The defendant advert shows that they skilled and therefore the plaintiff could rely on their skills and judgment to buy a stroller. On negligence, the plaintiff defendant did not disapprove that all the four elements existed. The defendant owed to the plaintiff to manufacture good strollers. They failed to manufacture strollers that were safe. Out of the defects, the plaintiff suffered injury, despite the fact that the defect was apparent. Works Cited American Law Institute, Second Restatement of Torts.Web.20.11.2014.. Connie Daniel v Ford Motor Co. Inc 581 F Supp 728 (1984).Web.22.11.2014. Freeman, Michael, Michael Freeman, and Michael Freeman. Law and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling Co 24 Cal 2d (1944).Web.22.11.201. Oman.J.Garret v Nissen 84 NM (1972).Web.22.11.2014. . Joseph Wojcik III v Empire Forklift. Inc 783 NYS 2d 698 (2004).Web. < http://www.leagle.com/decision/20047714AD3d63_165.xml/WOJCIK%20v.%20EMPIRE%20FORKLIFT%20INC>. Cardozo, J. MacPherson v Buick Motors Co 217b NY 382 (1916).Web.22.11.2014. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).Web.22.11.2014. < http://www.lawnix.com/cases/palsgraf-long-island-railroad.html>. Voss v Black and Decler Manufacturing Co 59 NY 2d 102 108 (1983).Web.22.11.2014. . White, G E. Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print. Read More