BUS415 Tutorial - 7060

Solution Detail
Price: $10.00
  • From: Law, Business
  • Posted on: Sun 08 Apr, 2012
  • Request id: None
  • Purchased: 0 time(s)
  • Average Rating: No rating
Request Description

Question
What would your answer be if the facts were changed up a little? How about if Mary still took off the guard and the rock still flew out. However, instead of the rock hitting the neighbor, the rock hit a dog. The dog was so frightened that it ran out in front of a car. The driver of the car slammed on the brakes so hard that his passenger (who was not wearing a seat belt) flew through the windshield and suffered very serious injuries. Now, the passenger is suing the driver and also, Mary. The passenger alleges that Mary's actions are the root cause of all the damages. What do you think? Anyone want to give it a go? Try to argue both sides.
(100 word)


Question
If the weed trimmer's instruction manual clearly states to not remove the guard. Would the manufacturer still be responsible? In my answer, I touched on the fact that maybe Mary never read the instructions or simply chose not to. If she didn't and the instructions clearly say not to remove the guard, should the manufacturer still remain a defendant... legally? ethically?
  What do you think? (100 word)


Question
I think some of the safety warnings that companies have to place on their products are absolutely ridiculous! As an example, it is really sad to think that someone needs to be warned to remove their infant from a folding stroller before folding! What happened to common sense? I found a list of crazy safety warnings online at 
http://rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml. (100 word)


Question
Isn't it just absolutely ridiculous to think that a toilet paper company should have to put a warning on the package not to eat it? Also you said that a family member may want to sue if their loved one died or had to be hospitalized because of their actions. Do you think they would win the case? I guess with the right lawyer it’s very possible. 
(100 word)

 

Solution Description

Question
What would your answer be if the facts were changed up a little? How about if Mary still took off the guard and the rock still flew out. However, instead of the rock hitting the neighbor, the rock hit a dog. The dog was so frightened that it ran out in front of a car. The driver of the car slammed on the brakes so hard that his passenger (who was not wearing a seat belt) flew through the windshield and suffered very serious injuries. Now, the passenger is suing the driver and also, Mary. The passenger alleges that Mary's actions are the root cause of all the damages. What do you think? Anyone want to give it a go? Try to argue both sides.
(100 word)

Answer
In this case the driver of the car owes a duty of care to the passenger. The driver of the car has a duty to ensure safety of the passenger by driving carefully. Some factors will be needed to taken into account when determining the compensation for instance if the passenger was not wearing a seatbelt the claim will be lower. The passenger will not be