University:
California State University, Northridge
Course:
BLAW 280 | Business Law I
Academic year:

2022
Views:

496

Pages:

3
Author:

Hallie Randolph

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company Facts: MacPherson bought a car from Buick Motor Company and the car collapsed due to a defective Wheel. MacPherson sues Buick, but Buick did not make the wheel itself. It is argued that, however, Buick could’ve spotted the defection through proper inspection. Legal Question: Is Buick guilty of negligence? Decision and Reasoning: After Devlin v. Smith and Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., the ruling of Thomas v. Winchester was extended to anything that had a potency of danger if negligently made. Because Buick did not inspect the cars for damages and negligently put it into the market, which put the buyer’s life at risk, they are guilty of negligence. Manufacturer owes a duty of care to foreseeable consumers and users of their product. Manufacturer has superior knowledge of the assembly of the parts into the product. Suppliers are not to blame Analysis: I agree. The buyer puts his trust in the company as he usually would not know how to spot a defective car. Therefore the liability should be put with the company. Daniell v. Ford Facts: Daniell got locked inside the trunk of a 1973 Ford for 9 days, alleging it to a defective trunk design that could not be opened internally. Blames Ford for not notifying her about it. (warning defect and design defect) Legal Question: Is Ford to blame here for product liability and negligence? Decision and Reasoning: The plaintiff is to blame for these circumstances because she wanted to commit suicide, ending up inside the trunk. She should be aware of the consequences of doing so. The principle of design defect is strictly locked to risks and injuries that are foreseeable. The plaintiff’s injury would not have been foreseeable to them. The purpose of the trunk is to be secure, and a reasonable person would not get stuck in that position. Analysis: The situation still stands that if someone gets trapped inside the trunk, whether not it was intentionally or not, a fix of the design by Ford could prevent any damages to the person. The fix shouldn’t be very complicated and doesn’t affect the overall structure of the car. To prevent any potential, even if unlikely damages, Ford should do it as a reasonable actor. While this situation permits unforeseeable circumstances, a different one could’ve warranted a different result. Ward v. Arm & Hammer Facts: Ward is sentenced to a 200-month sentence for distributing crack cocaine. Plaintiff charges Arm & Hammer for not labelling a warning on their baking soda for the consequences of criminally misusing baking soda to make crack cocaine. Said that if he was warned that it was criminal, he would’ve never done it. (defective product/unreasonablely dangerous) Legal Question: Is Arm & Hammer to blame? Decision and Reasoning: There is no duty to warn of potential consequences for criminal misuse of products. Would require all products to label any possible use for criminal intent, which is impossible and costly. So no. (product misuse, open and obvious danger) Analysis: Very common sense. Case closed.