Product Liability under the Law - Essay Example

Case 18.8 The case of Clark v Brass Eagle, Inc. is one where the plaintiff (Clark) tried to hold the manufacturer of a paintball gun (Brass Eagle, Inc) liable for an injury to his eye when another individual (Rico) fired the gun and struck Clark in the eye. The accident happened when they were driving and shooting paintballs at other vehicles that also had paintball guns. The plaintiff is attempting to state that Brass Eagle incurred product liability under the law. The ruling was correctly made by Mississippi State Court and then later by the Mississippi Supreme Court that Brass Eagle, Inc. was not liable under product liability law for the injury to Clark. There were several key factors in this case including: (1) the individual who shot the paintball gun (Rico) testified that the product did not malfunction when he fired it. (2) Clark was aware that protective eyewear was available to use, but he decided not to wear any; (3) Clark knew beforehand that there was danger involved in what he was doing since he said it was “common sense” for people not to shoot anyone in the face with a paintball gun and; (4) the product did what is was expected to do under the circumstances. Product liability can be based on the theories of negligence, misrepresentation, and strict liability. In regards negligence, the manufacturer would have to fail to exercise ‘due care’ to ensure the product is safe. This would include the design, manufacturing, and inspection. This did not happen or could be proved as shown primarily by Rico’s testimony that the gun did not malfunction. Misrepresentation can happen if intentional mislabeling of packages happens or if product defects are concealed. Neither of these things happened with Brass Eagle and the Supreme Court case details mentioned how a warning label showing the dangers was in the package itself. The requirements for Strict product liability under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is federal law that can be summarized as: (1) the product must have been in defective condition when sold; (2) the defendant must have been in the business of selling the product; (3) the product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of it’s defective condition; (4) the plaintiff must incur physical harm; (5) the defective condition must by the proximate cause of the injury; and (6) the goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to when the damage occurred. Clark could not prove that the product itself was defective since Rico testified that the paintball gun did not malfunction when he fired it. The product was also not unreasonably dangerous to the consumer because of any defective condition. A defense to this is a ‘commonly known danger’. Since almost everything can be dangerous in some way if improperly used, Clark could not use this as defense. The ‘knowledgeable user’ defense also can be used by Brass Eagle, Inc. The ‘knowledgeable user’ defense states that if a danger should be commonly known by the user of a product, then the manufacturer is not required to specifically issue a warning. Since Clark had formal training classes in using paintball guns, he could not say he was unaware of potential dangers. The proper ruling in the case was made in favor of Brass Eagle, Inc. Reference: John M. Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc. No. 2003-CA-00369-SCT SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 866 So. 2d 456; 2004 Miss. Question 24.8 In this case, Merrill was the agent for a seller of a condominium. The agreement was not in writing, but verbal. There was an agency relationship between Merrill and Warren. Since an agency relationship existed between these two individuals, a fiduciary relation also was in place where Merrill was to not act for her own benefit, but for the benefit of the other party (Warren). A fiduciary relationship involves both trust and confidence. An agent owes certain duties to the principle: (1) performance; (2) notification; (3) loyalty; (4) obedience; and (5) accounting. It appears that these duties were breached by Merrill. First, performance in a contract is the agent’s agreement to use reasonable diligence, skill, and ordinary or expected care while acting in behalf of the other party. In examining closer the cited case reference and Court ruling that the text refers to, it is clear that Merrill breached this. Merrill was trying to represent three parties all at the same time: (1) the seller; (2) Warren; and (3) her daughter in the transactions. Merrill was seeking her own and her daughter’s best interests at the expense of Warren. In the court reference made, it was shown that Merrill had no credibility and made conflicting statements. She made money for herself and her daughter and showed no interest for Warren’s welfare and eventually had him evicted from the condominium. The second element is notification. An agent is required to notify the principal of all matters that come to his or her attention concerning the agency relationship. This did not occur since Merrill was trying to commit fraud in regards the transaction by personal gain for herself and daughter. The third element is loyalty. This is where the agent has the duty to act solely for the benefit of his or her principle and not in the interest of a third party. This did not happen since Merrill was trying to benefit unjustly herself and daughter through secret profit. Also, she failed to ever notify the original seller of the new verbal agency relationship she entered into with Warren. The fourth element is obedience. A duty is placed on the agent to follow all lawful and clearly stated instructions of the principal. There was an obvious breach since fraud was occurring. Merrill falsely claimed she would put Warren’s name on the title to the condominium if he went along with her plan on how to structure the transaction. The last element is accounting. Accounting states that there would be no intermingling of funds and clear records should be made to the principal of all funds received or paid out. This didn’t seem to occur in this case either and misrepresentation also happened. The final outcome is that the duties of the agent (Merrill) were severely breached. As the text mentions, she misrepresented her daughter’s address, business, and income. Merrill convinced Warren to remove his name from the title of the condominium, and then after doing that, had him evicted. Warren was the rightful winner in the case since the agency relationship between himself and Merrill was breached for the above reasons. Reference: WARREN v. MERRILL 143 Cal.App.4th 96; 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 122 [Sept. 2006] Read More