Introduction
This article represents a strict liability case pitting Sandpiper footwear as the defendant and McDuff as the plaintiff. Sandpiper footwear is accused of failing to issue a warning on the dangers of driving with flip-flops (which is one of their primary products). The case originated from an incident where Jipsy (a customer) caused an accident when her car swerved off her line and collided head-on with McDuff’s. Consequently, Mc Duff suffered severe spinal cord injuries. The accident was caused when Jipsy’s flip-flops stuck under the accelerator pedal causing the car to accelerate at a high speed. From the incident, the flip-flops manufacturing company, Sandpiper Footwear, is deemed liable to McDuff for its failure to warn the users of its products (flip-flops) of the dangers caused when it is worn while driving. Here, I represent Sandpiper footwear in establishing that, the company is not liable under a strict liability clause for McDuff’s injuries.
Argument
Section 402A of the restatement of the Torts act defines cases where companies are liable under the strict liability clause (Jennings 431). One case where companies are liable under this clause is when they produce defective goods which ultimately cause damages or harm to users. Under this provision, Sandpiper footwear is an exception because the flip-flops worn at the time of the accident were not defective at the time of the accident. Here, the company cannot be said to be liable under this clause because the flip-flops were not defective at the time of purchase. This means that Sandpiper footwear exercised all possible care when making the flip-flops. Though section 402A requires that, companies warn their users of potential danger when using their product, the same section also stipulates that, for companies to be held liable for any dangers resulting from the use of their products, the products must be defective at the time of purchase (Jennings 431). Obviously, the danger posed by the flip-flops cannot be linked to any defect the product had at the time of the accident because there was none.
The court should also understand that the accident might have not been caused by the product (flip-flops) in the first place. One reason for this assertion is the events that preceded the occurrence of the accident. It is documented that, before the accident occurred, Jipsy (the driver of the car) was receiving flirtatious signals from other drivers when she pulled over at a stop. Also, before she sped off, she wanted to impress her admirers. This trail of events shows that her state of mind was not as clear as it should have been because her motive to impress her admirers may have caused her to speed off faster than normal, thereby causing the accident. Here, the accident which caused Mc Duff’s injuries may have been caused by Jipsy’s poor driving skills and not the flip-flops. Also, from the evidence obtained, Jipsy had driven with the flip-flops from her home to the beach and finally to the intersection. Throughout the drive, there were no complaints registered regarding driving with flip-flops. It is therefore of no surprise that, the accident happened only after she noticed people were admiring her in her convertible car and that is when she felt the need to speed off in an impressive manner. In this scenario, it is therefore correct to say that, Jipsy’s flip-flops were misused and the accident cannot be directly attributed to the product as an exclusive cause of the accident.
Under Section 402A, companies are expected to disclose any dangers that their products may cause to users if they discover such dangers within reasonable testing of such products (Jennings 431). In this context, Sandpiper footwear cannot be held liable for McDuff’s injuries because driving is not a primary use of flip-flops. In other words, the disclosure that flip-flops may be of harm to users when driving was not within the company’s capability to determine because it is a footwear company and not an automobile firm. In other words, the company does not carry out primary tests of its products on cars and drivers. In fact, flip flops are primarily designed for use around the house and not for driving. The disclosure that flip-flops were dangerous when used in driving was therefore out of the company’s capability to determine.
Conclusion
Sandpiper Footwear Company cannot be held liable for Mc Duff’s injuries because of the nature of accusations leveled against it. Before the company’s liability responsibility is determined, the causation principle cannot be easily determined because there is significant reason to establish that, the accident may have been caused by a misuse of the flip-flops (considering the events that preceded Jipsy’s action to speed off). Secondly, Sandpiper footwear manufactured the flip-flops in good condition (for its primary purpose) and therefore, it cannot be held liable for McDuff’s injuries because it was not defective at the time of sale. Finally, it was not within the company’s scope of operations to determine the safety of the flip-flops when driving because driving is not a primary use of the flip-flops. The company can therefore not be held liable for not disclosing a danger that was not determinable at the time of product testing.
Work Cited
Jennings, Marianne. Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. London: Cengage Learning, 2005. Print.