pertain to the court's opinion in Shepard v. Superior Court. To give you some background information, in
Question:
pertain to the court's opinion in Shepard v. Superior Court. To give you some background information, in the trial court case Shepard v. Ford Motor Company, the Court dismissed Shepard's case by concluding that "the evidence...fails to show either the claimed defect or causation with reasonable probability". In this earlier case, the claim was focused on a defect in the vehicle that negligently hit Shepard's vehicle. The plaintiffs have filed a complaint with the Superior Court to allow them to respond to this verdict by amending their claim (i.e., leave to amend). In Shepard v. Superior Court, the claim is based on a defect in the locking mechanism of the rear door of Shepard's car. Bottom of Form
Question 15
HomeworkUnanswered
Which of the following statements is NOT true about Judge Taylor's opinion?
A The opinion finds the criteria outlined in Dillion v. Legg, pertaining to the requirements for recovery of damages by a bystander of an accident, to be satisfied in this case.
B The opinion states that establishing negligence by Fort is not required in this case since the plaintiff's claim is based on strict liability.
C The opinion states that in this case strict liability is too stringent of a requirement for a manufacturer who could not have foreseen such an accident.
D The opinion states that relieving the plaintiff from proving negligence on the side of Ford is appropriate in this case because Ford should have reasonably anticipated that the defective part would not be inspected by the consumer, thus leaving the responsibility of a defect solely on the manufacturer.
Question 16
HomeworkUnanswered
Which of the following arguments is part of Judge Kane's dissenting opinion regarding his objection to using the doctrine of strict liability in this case? You need to select all correct answers to obtain credit.
Multiple answers: You can select more than one option
A The doctrine of strict liability should be used only for physical injuries that are reasonable quantifiable.
B Strict liability is likely to impose a significant economic burden on the society and thus should be avoided in most cases.
C Strict liability would reduce consumers' incentives to exercise care or purchase insurance to cover injuries from accidents involving manufactured products.
D The accident was not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer and thus does not satisfy the foreseeability requirement in Dillon v. Legg.
Question 17
HomeworkUnanswered
Judge Kane outlines a number of factors that are important in establishing the manufacturer's duty of care in cases of consumer injury. Which of the following factors are part of his argument? You need to select all correct answers to obtain credit.
Multiple answers: You can select more than one option
A Whether the imposition of the duty will place undue burden on the manufacturer.
B Whether the plaintiff is a party of the transaction upon which the liability is established.
C Whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related in order to substantiate the claim of emotional trauma.
D Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident.
E Whether the injury is verifiable.
Question 18
What is the purpose of strict liability in manufacturing according to Judge Kane? Explain how strict liability could accomplish this purpose
Question 19
Judge Kane states that strict liability will result in higher precaution costs as manufacturers try to reduce their likelihood of liability. However, he argues that this higher costs will not be passed down to consumers due to market competition forces. Consequently, he speculates that the manufacturers will compensate for the increased precaution cost by lowering the product's quality in other dimensions that are not affecting safety. Do you agree with this argument? Why/why not?
Question 20
This case highlights the difficulty of establishing and evaluating non-physical harm. In this respect, this case shares common features with tort cases, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover punitive damages. Do you think that Nasar's theory of moral accounting interest could be applied to this case? Why/why not?
Auditing a business risk appraoch
ISBN: 978-0324375589
6th Edition
Authors: larry e. rittenberg, bradley j. schwieger, karla m. johnston