Tort law - Product liability and negligence, Essays (university) of Contract Law

Download Tort law - Product liability and negligence and more Essays (university) Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity! HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF LAW Subject: TORT LAW GROUP 8_CLC44B Lecturer: Ha Thi Thanh Binh No. Full name Student ID Note for recognition, productivity from group leader 1 Tran Tuan Nghia 195380101 4134 He has completed less than 50% valuable part of his mission. The rest of members recognized 50% his dedication and he was just recieved 50% mark, which is given for our group by Mrs. Binh. 2 Le Thi Kim Ngoc 195380101 1162 Fully completed her mission 3 Truong Bao Ngoc 195380101 4138 Fully completed her mission. I suggest sharing my plus mark because of her great dedication 4 Nguyen Ngọc Kim Nguyen (Group leader) 195380101 5148 Fully completed my mission. I want to share group leader’s plus mark to Bao Ngoc Case..........................................................................................................................3 1. Whether Dozier can succeed the case if applying U.S. law?................................3 Negligence or Strict liability.................................................................................3 “Abnormally misused” or “Normally misused” & “Unforeseeable” or “Forseeable”................................................................................................................4 If the plaintiff misused the product, whether the plaintiff has a chance to succeed the case?......................................................................................................................4 What type of detect could be used for Dozier’s successful claim?........................5 2. Would your answer be different if Vietnamese law applies? ...............................6 REFERENCES......................................................................8 2  On the whole, if the raise of counterweight by Dozier is normal misuse, then Dozier could succeed to sue X company. So if that manner is abnormal misuse, does Dozier still have a chance to succeed in this case? The answer is he still has the last opportunity to claims in strict liability. But how to know which one he could use? That question will lead to the next point. A product can be defective due to a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or due to a failure to provide adequate warning about an unavoidable danger associated with the use of the product. What type of detect could be used for Dozier’s successful claim? The first one is manufacturing defects, this type alleges that the original design of the product is completely safe but that something happened during the manufacturing process to make the product unsafe. A manufacturing defect exists if the product does not conform to its intended design and fails to perform safely as the intended design would have performed. The second type is design defect. This type alleges that the product is inherently dangerous based on its design alone rather than an error made during the manufacture of the product. And the last one we must consider here is warning defects, this type focuses on a warning or labeling defect and says that the manufacturer of those products has a legal duty to adequately warn of this danger but failed to do so. The key here is if the plaintiff wants to claim one of these types, he must prove that his misuse is foreseeable. Because if the basic requirements to claim strict liability is the plaintiff must use the product in proper ways that the manufacturer intends or misuse but foreseeable.  In deciding whether or not a product is being used in a way the manufacturer intended it to be used, the market for which it is produced is a most important consideration. This bears directly upon the issue of foreseeability. The Judge in precedents Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt (5th Cir. 1967) once said: “The intended marketing scheme is one basis for deciding which users can be foreseen”. The market for which a product was sold is one of the most crucial factors in determining whether or not it is being used as the manufacturer intended. Based on the fact in case, the hook was sold in Keystone Brothers, a harness and saddlery ware outlet, thus the intention and consumer that the product aimed at is quite specific - farm animals and similar ranch. Therefore, X company unforeseeable the “misused” of the hook and he could not claim two type of strict liability, except the last one - warning defects.  5 Hence, it is suitable to hypothesize 2 circumstances. Because the case is not mentioned about whether the hook has adequate instructions and warnings or not: - If the hook has warning information, it clearly shows that X company could foresee the “unusual use” by consumers and potential risks exist in the products because if X co. could not foresee the “misuse”, how could they put the warning in the product? Therefore, if he could prove that X company failed to adequately warn, he could succeed in claiming to recover compensatory damages under California’s strict liability law - warning defects. - If the hook has no warning information about raising counterweight manners, this point proves that the manufacturer has unforeseen that misuse because there is no duty to warn against a use that is not reasonably foreseeable. To conclude, Dozier could not succeed to sue X company in this hypothesis. Generally, for the foregoing reasons, the manufacturer does not have a strict liability to the plaintiffs for his arm broken except in case that X company could not prove that the usage of Dozier is abnormally misused and in case the hook has warning information about counterweight but failed to adequately warn consumers of the potential risks. The remaining cases, Dozier may not succeed in suing X company if apply U.S law. 2. Would your answer be different if Vietnamese law applies?  If this case is applied to Vietnamese law, the answer will not be changed. It means that the plaintiff Dozier cannot succeed against X Company. In Vietnamese law, a tort is rised based on one of following grounds according to Article 584 Civil Code 2015: 1. A person intentionally or unintentionally harming the life, health, honor, dignity, reputation, property, or other legal rights or interests of a person, must compensate for such damage, unless otherwise prescribed in this Code or relevant laws. 2. The person who causes damage shall be discharged from liability for compensation in case where the damage incurs due to force majeure events or at entire fault of the aggrieved person, unless otherwise agreed or otherwise prescribed by law. 3. If a property causes damage, its owner or possessor must compensate for the damage, except for the damage prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article. Accordingly, there are 3 conditions for rising the liability to compensate for non- contract damages: (1) Actual damage occurred (direct damage and indirect damage) 6 (2) Damage-causing acts are illegal acts (3) A cause-and-effect relationship between the illegal act and the damage caused Considering this case, Dozier's injury was caused by the reason that the hook was too weak and not suitable to be attached to a 1,700-pound counterweight. This leads to a question that if the hook is used specialized for lifting counterweights, why can it break so easily? Is it maybe because the quality of that hook is not up to standard? If the answer for this question is “Yes”, the plaintiff Dozier will easily claim compensation for injury from the defendant X Company. However, the hook was used by Dozier that is actually not the one to use for lifting counterweights in the airline’s warehouse, it was purchased from a store specializing in selling products commonly for ranch and farm animals. In other words, the original function of that hook is not to lift the counterweight, but it is just used for other objects in the farm that are much lighter than the counterweight. → It means that the reason for Dozier's accident was not caused by the quality of the hook, but the improper usage of the hook. → Despite having actual damage occurred with Dozier (condition (1) was satisfied), his injury was not caused by illegal acts of X Company and thus, there is no relationship between his injury and illegal acts of X Company (remaining conditions were not satisfied). → Based on the grounds according to Article 584 Civil Code 2015, X Company is not obliged to be responsible for the injuries or damages caused by the misuse and improper usage of their products by customers. On the other hand, in the Vietnamese legal documents system “to warn about the product's capability of causing unsafe and notify preventive methods to sellers and consumers” is one of the obligations of the manufacturer under Article 10 clause 4 of Law on Product and goods quality. Therefore, in case that X Company breaches their duty to warn consumers, they might be subject to administrative fines but not civil compensation. In conclusion, X Company will be relieved from the liability for the injury of Dozier in condition of applying Vietnamese law. 7