anthony lewis lseb mgmt 639 week 3 assignment

7/31/2019 Anthony Lewis LSEB MGMT 639 Week 3 Assignment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/anthony-lewis-lseb-mgmt-639-week-3-assignment 1/4

Anthony LewisMay 23, 2012Legal/Social Environment of Business (MGMT-639)Week 3: Assignment 1

“Chapter 7 Questions”

Question 1. Please read Marilyn Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., pp 276-279, and answer questions 1-4.

1. a. Why did the California Supreme Court rule in favor of Navegar in this Case?

After reviewing the case, I concluded the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Navegar dueto the fact that the plaintiffs was unsuccessful in providing sufficient proof that Ferri was forced intopurchasing the TEC-9/DC9 by Navegar. There was insufficient evidence found, which includedproof of advertising or other reference to anything supplied for Navegar in Ferris’ posession.

b. Explain the plaintiffs cause of action.

According to the text, the plaintiffs’ cause of action against Navegar is for common law

negligence. The claim was on the basis of several facts. These facts included the following:

The TEC-9/DC9 is a small, easily concealable military, assault weapon.

It has no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose and is particularly well adapted to amilitary style assault on large number of people

It is disproportionately associated with criminal activity

It is more attractive to criminals because of its firepower and other features

Its fire power was likely to be enhanced by the addition of products such as high-capacitymagazines

It would be used to kill or injure innocent persons in violent criminal acts such as the masskilling committed by Ferri.

c. Explain the dissenting opinion.

The judge stated that Navegar cannot be held accountable for producing a weapon; pursuant tocivil code section 1714.4. This section states that a manufacturer should have withheld a productfrom the market, simply because it is popular with criminals and violent individuals, but does notsupport the claim of negligence that has been proposed by the plaintiffs.

d. Argue that the plaintiffs claim did not involve risk-benefit analysis of the kind forbidden by the

California statute.

California Civil Code 1714.4 does not allow liability to be brought against a gun-maker based ona defect in the product. The claim does not include any risk benefit analysis; therefore they cannotclaim that the product as being defective. The claim of the product defect being that it is popular

amongst criminals cannot be passed as a defect.

2. In your opinion, should gun manufacturers be liable for the criminal use of their products? Explain.

Due to my strong belief in the Second Amendment in the U.S Constitution, I feel that theindividual using the gun should be liable. If this individual wanted to injure an individual or largegroup of individuals, they will find a way. There are a large number of weapons that can be used in away that can criminally injure another. One thing that must be accounted for is precedence. If thisgun maker is held criminally responsible for producing such a weapon, then they must use this in



accordance with every other similar case. If the weapon is advertised as a form of killing massamounts of people or injuring anyone at all then I feel there may be liability in that situation.Otherwise, I strongly believe in the statement “Guns don’t kill people, I kill people.”

3. Some observers argued that a decision for the plaintiffs in the Merrill/Navegar case would have led to

a product liability “slippery slope.” Explain that argument. Do you agree with it? Explain.

If the court sided with the plaintiffs then it would have set a precedent for other cases. Manyother victims of gun crime could potentially pursue gun manufacturers for possible tort suits. Thiscould have caused a major influx of cases, and gun manufacturers going out of business. This couldextend further than just guns as well. If someone produced a really large knife and it was used tomortally injure an individual then there could be liability on behalf of the knife producer.

4. Hollister was badly burned when her shirt came into contact with a burner as she leaned over her

electric stove. She sued the store where she bought the shirt, claiming that is was defectively designed.

What proof will Hollister need to provide to win her defective design claim?

After reviewing the case in question, I feel there needs to be sufficient proof of negligence bythe store selling the shirt. Although Hollister has failed to prove any negligence on Dayton Hudson's

part regarding this alleged defect, she needed only to establish a prima facie case that the shirt wasdefective and that it caused her injuries in order to pursue her claim for breach of implied warranty.Hollister had to show proof that the shirt was indeed defective, proof could have been the materialthat the shirt was made of being lit on fire, to prove that it ignited faster than alternative materialsused in other clothing items.

Question 2. Please answer the negligence defense questions 1-3 on p. 283, and questions 1 & 2 on

page 284.

1. Would the dissents reasoning in the Whitlock court of appeals decision apply to the trampoline in youramusement park business? Explain.

I do not believe that the reasoning in the Whitlock court of appeals decision would apply to abusiness that was specifically offering the device for customer’s enjoyment. This would most likelybe the case of a waiver, that most amusement parks make you sign when you get on a ride thatinvolves something potentially dangerous. If I did not have the customers sign such a waiver ornotify them of the potential danger of getting on the trampoline than I could be held responsible.

2. Would a warning and close supervision protect you from liability under the court of appeals decision?Explain.

I do not believe that a warning and close supervision would be enough protection. If somethingwere to happen someone could claim that were they not fully notified of the danger of the device. Ina busy amusement park it would be something that would be easy to miss. The best thing would beto have customers sign waivers, or a statement that when they purchased tickets they waive their

rights.

3. Would you have the duty of due care for your customers that the Supreme Court said the University of Denver did not have for Whitlock Explain.

I do not believe that we would have the duty of due care. We would be a place of amusement notsomeone’s employer. We would have no real direct relationship with customers. They would bethere for amusement and they would be explained the risks, which we would offer all safetyprecautions.



Page 284 Questions

1. What defense would you offer on behalf of Muldovan? Explain.

McEachern was also negligent in the case, although he is dead and cannot be sued for his owndeath, he was equally involved. The two boys were playing with the gun when they knew the danger

of the gun. The both assumed the risk, and McEachern could have just as easily shot Muldovan.McEachern also contributed to the negligence in the situation being involved with the playing withthe gun.

2. Decide the case. Explain.

Muldovan cannot be held accountable for negligence. He was equally negligent in the case aswas McEachern. If anything the boy’s parents should be held accountable as it was their gun in thefirst place. While 17 year olds should be expected to know the dangers of guns, they may not be insound faculty of mind to fully comprehend the extent of the situation.

Question 3. Please read Calles v. Scripto-Tokai, pp. 290-292. Answer questions 1-4 (you do notneed to answer question 5).

1. a. Explain the plaintiffs Calles’ claim that the Aim N Flame lighter was defective and unreasonably

dangerous.

The plaintiffs claim was that the lighter was defective and unreasonably dangerous because itdid not contain a child safety lock as did many lighters at the time. They claimed that Scriptopossessed the technology to make a child safety lighter at least 4 years prior.

b. Explain the courts resolution of Calles claim.

The court sided with Scripto because Calles failed to provide proof that the Aim N Flame wasunreasonably dangerous. Although it was shown from an internal Scripto memo that the cost of adding child safety devices on the lighters would have increased the production cost a mere $.03 a

unit, they failed to see the reasoning behind implementing the device.

2. What evidence must a plaintiff provide to maintain a useful defective design product liability claim?

A plaintiff must be able to produce proof that shows that the defendant was held accountable.This may be showing that another product of the same statute was not defective.

3. Is the manufacturer excused from liability if the product ’ s danger is obvious or if the product is used in

an unintended but foreseeable fashion?

The manufacturer is only excused from liability if the products danger is explicitly stated. Whatis obvious to some is not obvious to others. It is a manufacturer’s duty to state that an item isdangerous. As stated in the textbook, warnings are becoming ridiculous, such as On a toilet brush:

Do not use for personal hygiene (McAdams, 2009 p# 280). These are unfortunately needed becausesome individuals do not understand the danger of some products or purposely use them in a mannerthey are not intended to be used.

4. a. Is the foreseeable risk unreasonable, in your judgment?

The foreseeable risk is unreasonable. It is up to parents to make sure that their kids do not haveaccess to a lighter. A lighter company cannot and should not be held responsible for something that



is beyond their control, as long as they do their best to make the device as safe as possible. A lighterthat does not have a warning or a child safety lock should be able to be held accountable.

b. How did you reach your conclusion?

Although this is similar to the gun case, and I was for that, lighters are different. They are not as

dangerous.

c. In your view, are the parents the responsible parties in these episodes? Explain.

Yes the parents are responsible. Lighters are very dangerous in the hands of children. Theyshould be locked away the same way that guns and knives are. If a parent leaves their lighters outand child burns down the house or kills themselves or others, than it really is the parents fault.

Works Cited

Hollister v. Dayton Hudson Corporation. (1999). Find Law. Retrieved May 24, 2012, fromwww.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6thcircuit/1153706.html

McAdams, T., Neslund, N., & Zucker, K. D. (2009). Law, business, and society (9th ed.). Boston:McGraw-Hill Irwin.

http://www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6thcircuit/1153706.html



anthony lewis lseb mgmt 639 week 3 assignment

Documents