Strict liability is a legal principle which makes a company or person responsible for their products or actions that causes damages despite of any fault or negligence on their part. In this case, an applicant filling a lawsuit for personal injury under the law of strict liability does not need to demonstrate negligent or intentional conduct. One is only required to demonstrate that the action of the defendant elicited strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. Whether or not an action of tort is regarded as strict liability and which damages are suitable for strict liability will depend on law of the state (Freeadvice.com, 2014).
The Case Fact
Strict liability applies mostly when individuals are engaged in intrinsically dangerous activities that may include use of dangerous chemical, use of heavy explosive, or transportation. It can also apply to certain manufactured products especially when a product has manufacturing defective and a person was injured as a result. In this case, Bob is hurt by a nail fired by a gun used by Dan without a warning. Normally, a nail gun is required to give a warning before firing so that the user can direct it to the right position. However, in this case the company failed to include the warning aspect and as a result the gun fired without the user intention and injured Bob. Thus, the defective manufacturing resulted to harm to Bob.
Element of Strict Liability Case
A complaint in a civil cause of action has to generally demonstrate three aspects to institute a strict liability crime. First Bob must demonstrate that Eagle Tools, Inc., manufactured a defective gun which was unreasonable and inherently dangerous under the circumstances. Bob must also show that the defective manufacturing act caused an injury to him as another person was using it correctly. To prove this, bob should use the gun that fired the nail that injured him and demonstrate the gun’s defect. In addition, Bobs should be supported by the person who was using the gun during the incident, the product manual and other non-defective product that can help in demonstrating the defect in this particular product. All this information will sum up the Bob’s case against the Eagle Tools Company. Lastly, Bob must demonstrate that he actually suffered harm as a result of this injury. Bob must demonstrate an actual harm, in this case a leg injury to be able to claim strict liability (Miller & Hollowell, 2011).
Once Bob is able to prove a strict liability Eagle Tools, Inc will be on the hook for the damages, irrespective of their disclaimers. Waivers and disclaimers of liability for products are frequently invalidated by courts over public policy and warranties are characteristically restricted so that retailers and manufacturers are held liable for personal injuries emanating from the use of the product. Thus in this case, the court is more likely to rule in favor of Bob. This is because Bob is in a good position to convince the court that the harm he suffered was as a result of defective manufacturing. In addition, in strict liability case, the court normally has a tendency of disregarding disclaimers and waivers of liability in favor of public policy and thus, Bob can highly be favored by the court decision in this case.
Order a unique paper on strict liability at an affordable price.
Order Unique Answer Now