Negligence and Strict Liability CASE STUDY
In life as in law, some events or actions happen and while we may not deserve them, they are more likely to get out of our hands especially under the legal system. In such instances, understanding the distinction between two causes of action, negligence and strict liability, would be critical to the survival through a tort liability. Negligence refers to the failure by a party to take care towards others in ways in which a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances (Feinman 2010).
While negligence might result in accidents and or cause damages, it is recognized as accidental and thus an unintentional harm. Strict product liability on the other hand is the legal provision that a manufacturer, seller or distributor is liable if their product harms a client/causes injury (Logan et.al 2010). Regardless of whether the manufacturer did everything to prevent the defect from being harmful, the fact that it causes it makes them legally accountable. .
1.Did GM’s product lead to any harm to the plaintiff?
In law, strict product liability is considered the defense’s accountability for its product’s effects on the plaintiff’s person and safety. The fact in this instance is that General Motor’s truck caused the death of Moseley due to its faulty tank design system. The conclusion is that GM should answer for strict product liability. The elements involved include a failure for reasonable conduct, a breach of owed duty, causal of injury and a breach of duty that caused injuries to the plaintiff, Moseley. Was GM liable for negligence in the case of Moseley’s accident and death? Legally, negligence refers to the failure of the defendant to take care in ways that would be reasonable for everyone else in similar circumstances. In fact, due to the sale of the trucks in the market while they have defects, GM had been negligent and this action created harm for Moseley. The conclusion is that GM should answer for negligence. The elements involved are the duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, and harm.
2. Moseley’s case was further strengthened through the way that evidence, witness accounts, and arguments favored their case. The plaintiff managed to show that the defendant’s trucks were not safe in their design, which was vulnerable to the collision as the fuel tank was exposed (outside the rails), thus susceptible to damage. The plaintiff’s witness corroborated the fact that Moseley was still alive after his car caught fire and this proved that the faulty design caused the fire that killed Moseley (Trial Story 2011). Further, another witness provided facts that the management chose to keep the findings of the tests private even though they showed that the trucks were faulty.
3.The first argument that GM presented was that harm was not caused by the designs of the truck but by the accident itself. The defense showed …
