Products Liability

0 Comment

Company description The Ford Motor Company is one of the leading manufacturers of vehicles and has a strong position in the global automotive market. The company widely engages in the development, manufacturing, distribution and service of vehicles, parts and their accessories. Ford corporate philosophy of stable improvement powerfully contributes to its immense achievement. The company endeavors to enhance its car products to appeal to its customers both buyers and potential buyers. At present, it concentrates on an advanced generation of consumers and creating stronger ties with this youthful market. As a result of its novel strategy, Ford has created a new line of vehicles, targeting the generation of cool and Ford main competitors include Toyota motor Company and GM motors (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The product safety issue that led to the lawsuit Ford Motor Company was recently involved in an accident involving a 15 passenger Ford F-350 Econoline Van. Information shows that the van skidded off northbound interstate 5 in Kern County after the tread separated on its rear right tire. It becomes evident that evidence from the trial testified that the Ford officials had earlier on been contacted by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and knew that the product was defective, but the company officials never made any effort to conduct its dealers or its customers. Further evidence also shows that one of the men killed in the rollover was not wearing a seat belt during the accident. The panel also found that it would not have mattered in a crash in which the van rolled over four times while travelling at 70 miles per hour. Ford was then assessed with 59 percent comparative fault. It was also assessed $50,000,000 in punitive damages as a result of the accident (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The legal theories used by the plaintiff to recover in this lawsuit, how the lawsuit was resolved, and why you agree with the decision in the case The legal theory applied in the above case is product liability and negligence. The theory states that any injuries, death or any loss which may be as a result of a person or entity’s negligence to fulfill any legal duty owed to another may be responsible for the act. These injuries are based on the legal theory of product liability and negligence and for one to establish a legal claim for negligence, it is required that the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a legal duty, the defendant breached that duty and this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff injuries and the plaintiff was injured or even damaged in one way or the other. While laws may differ from state to state, deaths or injuries may be imposed for negligence (Birsch Fielder, 2004). For instance, Kristi D. Roofer one of the plaintiffs sued the company over the manufacturers who sold the van which was involved in that accident as Ford failed to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists. The lawsuit argues that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous and ultimately caused the death of the passengers. The defendant is accused of negligence for failing to design and manufacture a crashworthy vehicle and with proper seat belts to reduce accident deaths