While discussing torts, it is necessary to focus on the cases associated with product liability and the issues of negligence and strict liability. It is also necessary to discuss the cases of torts as legal causes of action. The first situation is connected with the product liability issue and the second situation is connected with the tort and a cause of action.
Fact Situation # 1. The June family sued J. C. Penney as a distributor of defectively dangerous products such as Perdana Drop-Side Cribs because of the death of their 19-month old child. The plaintiffs point at the defective design and negligent manufacture and on the fact of distribution of defective products. In this situation, both the manufacturer and distributor can be discussed as liable in tort because of manufacturing and distributing defective products, still, the presence of defects should be proven and reported (Polinsky and Shavell 34).
It is possible to speak about negligence in relation to product liability when the manufacturer produces high-quality goods and the seller’s conduct can be discussed as unreasonable because of the further unintentional injury. The fact that the sold cribs regularly malfunction because of the failure mechanism to facilitate the side’s dropping supports the idea that the product is defective, and it can cause dangers (Beatty and Samuelson 423). Thus, the June family should focus on proving the product’s defectiveness in order to impose strict liability on the manufacturer and distributor.
Fact Situation # 2. Sally Marfield’s child was born as a result of the doctor’s negligence because the pregnancy was unwanted, and Sally was not informed about the dangerous effects of using such an abortion-inducing drug as Q-Zap on the fetus. It is important to state that the doctor did not warn about the consequences of using the drug and did not propose the test for determining genetic conditions (Pozgar 115). As a result, the born child suffers from pain, and Sally spends funds to support her son’s life. In this case, Sally can sue for wrongful birth as a cause of action because the doctor demonstrated negligence, and he failed to inform Sally about the risks of using the drug and having a child with significant genetic conditions.
Consequently, Sally suffers from spending resources to support the son’s life, and the child suffers from a life of pain. It is possible to state that the harm to Sally’s family is caused because of the medical negligence, and this case should be discussed as the medial intentional tort because the doctor also did not inform the patient about his religious position which could also become the cause of his harmful actions. Thus, the doctor did not follow ethical standards, the standards of care, and caused harm to the patient because of not warning about the risks of genetic abnormalities (Rhinehart 147). That is why Sally can easily sue because of observing the main elements of the medical malpractice tort.
The analyzed situations can be discussed as clear examples of torts. The first case is related to the issue of product liability and points at the liability of the manufacturer and seller. The second situation is a typical case of wrongful birth as a cause of action related to the medical malpractice tort. Thus, the provided situations can be easily discussed under the determined laws.
Works Cited
Beatty, Jeffrey, and Susan Samuelson. Business Law and the Legal Environment. New York: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Polinsky, Mitchell, and Steven Shavell. “The Uneasy Case for Product Liability”. Harvard Law Review 123.6 (2010): 34-52. Print.
Pozgar, George. Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.
Rhinehart, Kelly. “The Debate over Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life”. Law and Psychology Review 26.141 (2002): 147-162. Print.