Ford Sue Case
商业法代考 The issue that has been highlighted in the case is that Ford did not use Bendium which may have prevented the metal from…
Introduction 商业法代考
The issue that has been highlighted in the case is that Ford did not use Bendium which may have prevented the metal from badly injuring Peter’s leg. However, as the metal is very expensive to use and increases production cost, therefore, many companies still haven’t started using it yet. On the other hand post accident analysis shows that had Bendium been used then the leg would not have been pierced with the metal and thus, Peter would not have sustained this injury.
I think the business law or rule that can explain this issue is that of Product Liability. Negligence is basically that area or part of law which holds manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers responsible for any and all damages that may have been caused by their product. If a product, or any part of the product is defective or due to one reason or another causes damage to the owner, then the manufacturer may be held responsible under the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) or under the common law of negligence.
Whenever a person makes a claim in negligence then it is considered that any action that manufacturer takes is liable to help responsible, and that the producer actually owes a duty of care to anyone who may be using that product or is expected to use that product. This means that a claim in negligence is not limited by the doctrine of privity of contract, which states that only a party to a contract can sue under it (Liability for Negligence).
The producer’s or company’s negligence may be due to many reasons, some of which I will be discussing here, pertaining to the case. 商业法代考
One of the major reasons why many of the manufacturers are sued is because they did not take care while manufacturing the product, and thus ended up making a faulty product. The fault may sometimes lie with the designing of the product, or the materials used when making it, which resulted in the accident in the first place. It may also be due to lack of research or proper implementation of quality assurance.
However, while these reasons may be used to claim for or sue the company for the losses, there are some limitations of negligence liability as well. The injured person needs to make sure that the company is actually responsible for failing to take reasonable care, and the injured party is not at fault.
In the case that has been presented to us, the case states that Peter fell asleep while driving the car, which eventually led him to crash into a tree, due to which a rod displaced and injured here foot. It must be noticed that the person who has sued the company for negligence and failing to use Bendium which may have prevented the injury, the accident is in fact Peter’s fault. If he was feeling so sleepy, he should have stopped at a motel to rest before he continued to drive, or he could have stopped along the side of the road, taken a nap for an hour, and then resumed the drive. He could have even taken a cab, that way at least he would have avoided the accident, so Peter claiming compensation for damages for an accident that he caused, is in my opinion unfair to the company. Ford is responsible for ensuring that it’s products are safe, while at the same time it also informs its customers about the metal being used and that it was not using Bendium.
While Bendium would have made a difference, it still does not change the fact that the accident was Peter’s fault.
In my opinion, the court should rule in favor of Bendium being utilized for future products by the company, however, only partial compensation should be made to Peter seeing as the accident was his fault and he should be held responsible for his actions too. The decision that should be taken should be a just one to both parties, as both of them should be held responsible for their actions. Peter fell asleep on the wheel and hence ended up in an accident. However, the critical damage to his leg may have been avoided had the manufacturer used Bendium instead of regular metal, therefore, I believe that both parties are at fault and should be dealt with accordingly. Therefore, the decision should be taken to provide partial compensation from the company to the injured party so that both recognize the extent and consequences of their actions.
References 商业法代考
Product liability for negligence, retrieved 12-2-18 from;
Claim in Negligence, retrieved 12-2-18 from;
https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/law-a-A76062D77404/?A76062D77404=
