Product Liability and Intentional Tort Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Product indebtedness and Intentional Tort - Essay ExampleThe rationale for placing high liability on the vendors and manufacturers regardless of the record of defect is that such parties are better placed to bear the cost implications of compensation. In this case, it is argued that increase manufacturers and sellers washbasin cushion themselves against losses resulting from increase defects by increasing the products prices. Due to lack of a federal law governing product liability, the precedence for liability torts is derived from various state laws and court rulings on the general tort law. The admissibility of Chases case for product liability can be constituted by examining the threshold requirements for product liability cases and relevant court rulings. According to the Indiana Law Review, the sideline mandatory threshold requirements exist for a case to qualify for product liability a products user/claimant who is subject to flaw by the product, products manufacture r or seller/defendant, faulty product that is considered as unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or consumers property, a product scope the consumer without alteration to its initial state and physical disability resulting from the product (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 20111378). Irrespective of the relevant product liability theories involved in the case, Chases case should meet the above criteria to qualify for admissibility (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 20111378). An examination of the theories upon which the product liability law is based provides insight to this hypothetical scenario. Under the theory of negligence, the manufacturer of the report shredding mould is not liable for Chases injuries since there was no negligence on the manufacturers part or failure to remove foreseeable risk of injury to the machines user (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 20111382). In this case, the injuries incurred were as a result of negligence by the user arising from failure t o read and dumbfound to the manufacturers book of instructions. However, the machines manufacturer can be held liable for Chases injury on the basis of the duty to warn the user against a foreseeable risk of injury by the machine (Buttrick, Alberts and Thornburg, 20111383). The manufacturers liability to provide warning to the user and whether the operation instructions were sufficient to protect Chase from injuries can be earned by examining other factors like the look upon of the warning. In this case, the manufacturer of the paper shredding machine had the duty to provide adequate warning regarding the dangers of personal harm incase the machine is operated without lubricating oil. Under negligence rule, Chase should prove that the injuries sustained occurred despite having observed the needful duty of care (Fischer, 20097). Product liability requires the injured party Chase to demonstrate the harm-causation relationship and whether there was any breach of duty if there was any negligence by the manufacturer (Fischer, 20097). Though there was concrete harm on the part of Chase and the nature of causation passes the required but-for test which seeks to establish whether the harm would have otherwise occurred, the burden of proof for the manufacturers failure to observe the necessary duty of care lies with Chase. In this case, it is less likely for Chase to be compensated by the paper shreddi