|
|
|
DeVry University Keller Graduate School of Management - MGMT...
DeVry_University_Keller_Graduate_School_of_Management_-_MGMT_520_MGMT_520_Week_5_Midterm.docx
Showing 3 out of 9
DeVry University Keller Graduate School of Managem...
DeVry_University_Keller_Graduate_School_of_Management_-_MGMT_520_MGMT_520_Week_5_Midterm.docx-These are the automatically computed results
DeVry University Keller Graduate Sc...
DeVry_University_Keller_Graduate_School_of_Management_-_MGMT_520_MGMT_520_Week_5_Midterm.docx-These are the automatically computed results
Page 3
Student Answer:
I. The negligence theory that can be used by Chanit against the Ford
Motor Company can be as follows. It was the duty of care for Ford Motor
Company to ensure that the door of the vehicle remained close when the
car spun out of control. This is a normal safety measure. This duty was
breached because the door opened and Chancit was thrown out of the
car. Further, Chancit suffered fatal injuries directly because the car door
flew open. There is legal causation. If the door had remained closed,
Chancit would be alive. Harm was caused to Chancit and he died. The
other theory that Chancit can use is the breach of implied warranty. It is
an implied warranty that a car would have normal safety measures built
into it and that would include a system by which the door would remain
closed when the car was hit or spun. So the implied warranty for a
particular purpose was violated. The manufacture Ford Motor Company
was strictly liable. In accordance with Section 2 of the Restatement of
Torts: Product Liability, this is a design defect. The design of the car
should have been such that the door should not have flung open when
the car spun. Ford Motor Company will be liable and compensation will be
paid to the widow of Chancit. II. Ford Motor Company will have several
defenses. The first defense is that Chancit should have been wearing the
safety belt. Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been
killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the
purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since,
the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for
the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin.
The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was
suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was
thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for
normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal
driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a
speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no
liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it
placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed
ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed
the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a
breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and
this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between
the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit.
There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed.
In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court
will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow damages according to
the evaluation by the court. IV. Chancit's widow has claimed that her
husband fell ill to food poisoning at Chi-Chi and so had not slept. This had
distracted him and caused the fatal accident. The claim of negligence
against Chi-Chi can be that they had a duty of care to ensure that the
food was fresh and free of germs. There was duty of care that
contaminated food should not be served. That Chancit was killed in an
accident because of the food poisoning. There was legal causation that
led to the death of Chancit, And Chancit was harmed because he was
killed. The weakness in the argument is that it will be difficult to prove
factual causation and legal causation. That Chancit was killed because of
food poisoning effects will be difficult to establish. In most probability, the
court will rule in favor of Chi-Chi and it will have no liability for the death
of Chancit
Ace your assessments! Get Better Grades
Browse thousands of Study Materials & Solutions from your Favorite Schools
DeVry University-Virginia
DeVry_University-Virginia
School:
Legal_Political_and_Ethical_Dimensions_of_Business
Course:
Great resource for chem class. Had all the past labs and assignments
Leland P.
Santa Clara University
Introducing Study Plan
Using AI Tools to Help you understand and remember your course concepts better and faster than any other resource.
Find the best videos to learn every concept in that course from Youtube and Tiktok without searching.
Save All Relavent Videos & Materials and access anytime and anywhere
Prepare Smart and Guarantee better grades
Know more
Students also viewed documents
lab 18.docx
lab_18.docx
Course
Course
3
Module5QuizSTA2023.d...
Module5QuizSTA2023.docx.docx
Course
Course
10
Week 7 Test Math302....
Week_7_Test_Math302.docx.docx
Course
Course
30
Chapter 1 Assigment ...
Chapter_1_Assigment_Questions.docx.docx
Course
Course
5
Week 4 tests.docx.do...
Week_4_tests.docx.docx
Course
Course
23
Week 6 tests.docx.do...
Week_6_tests.docx.docx
Course
Course
106
