Zoom Car is an automobile manufacturing agency that seeks to satisfy its customers. Client satisfaction is vital, and the company offers a compass installation in its cars as an after-sale service. Zoom Car Company is involved in installing the compasses, which are manufactured by a different company called Corrigan, Inc. one of the Zoom company clients, Daniel Boone purchased an automobile, which was installed with this feature. He was involved in a crime scene after driving to an unsafe place; this was because the compass malfunctioned and lost direction. The client suffered injuries due to beatings from thugs in the insecure location that the compass directed him. Daniel has now sued Zoom Company to cater for his medical costs. He feels the company is responsible for his misfortune since the compass installed in his car was faulty and misled him.
This case comprises of vital legal issues, which include physical and psychological injuries. The case presents Mr. Daniel Boone as the plaintiff and Zoom Car as the defendant. The defendant bought a car from Zoom Car, and it was installed with a car dashboard compass like any other car. The installed compass was faulty, and this made Mr. Daniel Boone to lose direction and head to a crime prone area. Thugs, who were at the unsafe area, dragged Mr. Daniel from the car, beat, and injured him physically. Daniel feels that the faulty compass installed in his car by the Zoom Company caused the misfortune, and is now suing the company to take care of the medical expenses. According to Mr. David, the company installed a faulty compass in his car, and it has to be liable for the mistake.
There exists a law of product liability, which puts liability of faulty products on manufacturers, sellers, leasers, and other stakeholders (Cheeseman, 2007). The manufacturing agency, Zoom Company, did not comply with law as it failed to test the compass before installing it in a client’s car. Both companies, Zoom Car and Corrigan, Inc. are liable for the plaintiff’s injuries according to the doctrine of strict liability in tort. According to the doctrine, all stakeholders involved in the distribution chain are liable for a malfunctioning good. The doctrine allows a plaintiff to sue any member in the distribution chain, ranging from manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers (Kelly, Holmes, & Hayward, 2005). The manufacturing companies are liable for Mr. Boone’s injuries even if they claim to have conducted thorough inspection of the compasses before installing them in their client’s cars. A seller of a commodity is liable for any misfortune even if all guidelines are followed in preparation of the product (Cheeseman 2007). It is essential for manufacturing firm to examine and monitor the performance of their products multiple times before selling to customers (Keenan, & Riches, 2007). This process is to ensure that the products are safe for consumers, and to detect any future problem. Manufacturers should recall any faulty product to avoid harm to the client.
As a judge, I would rule this case in favor of Mr. David Boone, in accordance with the strict liability doctrine in the law of tort. I would exercise power to let the plaintiff sue Corrigan, Inc. at his own will. This is because the company is directly involved to the misfortune that befell Mr. Boone. Zoom Car can as well sue Corrigan, Inc. in a separate case. This is in case the company feels that it was not liable for what happened to their client, Mr. David Boone.
In my opinion, legal regulations used in this case are fair and reasonable according to law. Mr. Boone deserves compensation for the company’s failure to perform of its duties. There would be no liability if thorough inspection of the compass were done. Compensation by catering for the plaintiff’s medical expenses is fair; the doctrine of strict liability in tort seeks to enhance customers’ safety through the products they purchase. It aims at ensuring firms bear responsibility for the products they sell. This will also enable the manufacturers to be keen in the process of producing their goods to ensure they are safe for consumption.
References
Cheeseman, H. R. (2007). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Keenan, D. J., & Riches, S. (2007). Business law. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Kelly, D., Holmes, A. E. M., & Hayward, R. (2005). Business law. London: Cavendish.
