Before considering the main laws and regulations, it is necessary to define the term liability and defense from the plaintiff’s viewpoint.
In most judicial systems, the theory of liability is often associated with a cause of action, the actual underpinning for the complaint, which is often claimed against the physical or legal entities who have designed, produced, furnished, or sold the product.
From a plaintiff’s perspective, the cause of action depends on such theories of liability as breach of the warranty, negligence, strict tort liability, and misrepresentation. To begin with, negligence refers to the failure to ensure proper care by an individual who was legally responsible.
Breach of warranty relates to the inability of a seller to reach the terms of agreement concerning the quality of the product. Finally, strict liability focuses on the vender’s responsibility for individuals who are under the threat of injure caused the proposed product, regardless the fact that the vendor’s fault is absents.
All these theories are applicable to the case. They help to define the issues that can be used both by the family and by resort during the trial.
Applying Law to the Case
The main concern of the case focuses on the analysis of strict tort liability and negligence since both parties concerned should take responsibilities for the violations.
Therefore, much concern is specifically connected with the quality of the product and negligent attitude of the family to warnings of the personnel concerning the risk of using specific services on the territory of the hotel.
Obligations Held by the Resort
From the perspective of resort being a plaintiff, specific attention should be given to the tort law. For instance, the resort managers can file a lawsuit against Buddy Smith who neglected the warning and rules of behavior on the territory of the hotel.
The charges can also be connected with Smith’s disorderly conduct. This is of particular concern to the case when the defendant decided to take a spin on the Merry Go Round. Besides, the reason for the injury could also be Mr. Smith’s intoxication, leading to inappropriate behavior and lack of coordination.
In case with Freddy, hotel will have to hold the responsibility for the poor quality of the ladder due to the improper inspection procedures, even though the product was manufactured by another stakeholder.
Obligations Held by the Family
From the perspective of the Smith Family, the theories of liability and defense could be relevant in terms of breach of the warranty, misinterpretation, and strict tort liability. The case with Freddie Smith should be considered from one point of view because the main reason for his injury was poor quality of the ladder.
Being the property of the hotel, the hotel manager could disregard this fact and, as a result, he/she should be the only one who is accountable for this accident. Nevertheless, Freddy could have listened to his parent and stay away from the ladder.
As per Freddie’ father, the resort takes a greater advantage in this case because the cause of Mr. Smith injury is negligence of instructions. At the same time, the man could still file a lawsuit premised on the misinterpretation of the information.
In particular, the phrase “Ride at Your Own Risk”, could be used as the basic for the family to accuse the hotel of the negligence. All these aspects can be used to either uphold the accusations or withdraw the charges.