This paper discusses whether Zoom Car Company’s conduct of selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to Daniel Boone constituted a tort as presented in the hypothetical case? This question is significant because Zoom Car Company can only be held liable for Daniel Boone’s loss if its action significantly contributed to Daniel Boone’s physical harm. Zoom Car Company committed an unintentional tort by selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to Daniel Boone.
We will write a custom Essay on Legal Issues of Zoom Car Company specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Under torts law, Zoom Car Company should assume liability for any accident that occurs as a result of faults in its cars. Even though Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. also committed a tort by selling a faulty dashboard compass to Zoom Car Company, it is the responsibility of Zoom Car Company to ensure that all dashboard compasses are in good condition before installing then in their cars.
It is clear from the facts provided in the hypothetical case that Daniel Boone, the plaintiff suffered physical injury. It is also clear from the facts in the case that the plaintiff got lost while driving at night and drove into a high crime area mainly due to the faulty dashboard compass installed in his car.
The main reason why the plaintiff opted to buy a car from Zoom Car Company was the fact that its cars had dashboard compasses and would thus assist him in finding his direction whenever he is lost. Daniel Boone’s loss was largely caused by the fact that his dashboard compass was faulty. It is as a result of this that Daniel Boone found himself in a high crime area and ended up with physical injury.
Had his dashboard compass been in good working condition, Daniel Boone would not have faced such a misfortune and would have also not incurred any medical cost. Under torts law, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s misfortune as it would have been avoided if his car was installed with proper dashboard compass. The defendant unintentionally caused loss to the plaintiff and should thus take responsibility for his medical costs.
While it is clear that the plaintiff suffered injury and incurred medical expenses, it is not clear whether the dashboard compass installed in his car was faulty at the time he bought this car from Zoom Car Company. There is a possibility that the plaintiff would have tempered with the dashboard compass.
Besides, customers are always given the opportunity to confirm that goods are in good working condition before purchasing them. How come the plaintiff did not detect the faultiness of dashboard compass at the time he was purchasing this car? Is the defendant’s conduct outrageous to have caused the plaintiff his misfortune? Remember Zoom Car Company only installs dashboard compasses.
The company responsible for manufacturing dashboard compasses is Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. If the dashboard compasses was not properly installed then, the defendant would be liable. The plaintiff should be clear on whether the dashboard compass was faulty or not properly installed before placing any liability on the defendant. Under civil law, defendant is not directly linked to the plaintiff’s misfortune and, therefore, is not liable to his medical costs.
If I was the charge presiding over this case, my ruling would be based on a critical analysis of the facts presented above. First, it is clear from these facts that both the plaintiff and the defendant contributed to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Under comparative negligence rule, the defendant is only liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff if he/she had the highest percentage of contribution to the loss.
In this case, the defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s loss by selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contributed to the loss through his negligence as he did not bother to confirm whether the compass was faulty during the purchase of the vehicle and by driving at night when he is not sure of his direction. Apart from comparative negligence, vicarious liability ruling is also applicable in this case.
Under vicarious liability, the defendant is liable for harm caused to the plaintiff as a result of a legally binding relationship between them. While this ruling is most applicable when dealing with employee-employer relationship, in this case the car will assume the position of the employee and Zoom Car Company, the employer. It is due to the fault in the car that the plaintiff suffered damage.
Since the car was bought from Zoom Car Company, the company should assume any liability arising from faults in the car. Besides, the plaintiff entrusted his future safety to the defendant when he bought a car with dashboard compass assuming that he will never lose his direction. The defendant is thus liable to his loss under torts law as its car failed to fulfill this responsibility.
From this analysis, I can conclusively rule that the defendant is liable for loss suffered by the plaintiff. First, the defendant greatly contributed to loss through its negligence. The company ought to verify its devices before installing them to ensure that they are in good working condition.
If this was done the damage suffered by the plaintiff would have been avoided. Second, as the company responsible for installing dashboard compasses in their cars, the plaintiff should assume any vicarious liability resulting from faultiness of this device. Zoom Car Company should thus assume liability for Daniel Boone’s medical costs.