If one is injured by a product - the Pinto blows up or the Tylenol is laced with arsenic, then they have three theories of recovery: negligence, strict liability, and warranty. The former two arise from tort law, and the latter is grounded in contract. One doesn't have to choose only one theory; if the facts support a claim, they can sue on the basis of any or all theories.

When researching the tort claims, be sure to focus on the elements that must be proven by a plaintiff. For example, a negligence claim involves three elements: a duty is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (to act as a reasonable person), the duty is breached (defendant didn't act reasonably), and the breach was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff. The Colorado Supreme Court explained to whom a duty is owed in Keller v Koca, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1126696.html. Then, the Court tried to explain "reasonable" in Camacho v Honda, https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1987/85sc112-0.html Must everyone act reasonably? A New York judge answers the question in Menagh v Breitman, http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2010OCT/3001078562009002SCIV.pdf

Strict Liability is basically a "no fault" claim. It doesn't matter how reasonably the defendant acted, if the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous and the plaintiff is injured then the defendant must break out the checkbook. Research the history of strict liability law and then look at a couple of Colorado cases that explain how the law is applied: Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank v Hansen https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1983/81sc370-0.html, and Uptain v Huntington Lab, https://casetext.com/case/uptain-v-huntington Can a manufacturer avoid liability with an exculpatory clause? Boles v Sun Ergoline answers the question. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1507045.html

Yet, what if the defendant just breaks a promise and the plaintiff is injured? A breach of warranty claim may be in order. A contract is basically a voluntary exchange of promises to do something in the future. In product liability cases, the defendant promised something / gave a warranty pertaining to the product; the consumer bought the product and, thereby, accepted the promise. If the defendant fails to deliver on the promise/warranty, then off to court they go. Carter v Brighton Ford http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1544027.html

Applying the applicable terminology and legal principles, identify the elements of a negligence claim. Then, consider the question: to whom does your company owe a duty? A vast majority of courts say a duty is owed to a foreseeable plaintiff; a minority say a duty is owed to any person harmed. Analyze the Court's majority and dissenting opinions in Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 2005 Colo. LEXIS 360 (Colo. April 18, 2005) and state your opinion - to whom should a duty be owed - and, citing specific ethical theories or the Regis/Jesuit values, justify it on ethical grounds. (Week 7 FTE, Case Law You Need to Know)

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Elements of a Negligence Claim A negligence claim typically involves the following elements Duty of Care The defendant owed a duty of care to the plai... View the full answer