Management 260 Week 11 Notes
Management 260 Week 11 Notes Management 260
Popular in Introduction to Law
Popular in Business, management
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Eunji Cho on Friday April 8, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Management 260 at University of Massachusetts taught by Michael Malkovich in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 19 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Law in Business, management at University of Massachusetts.
Reviews for Management 260 Week 11 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/08/16
UMass Amherst Management 260 Professor Malkovich Week 11 Notes: Apr 4 – 8 By Eunji Cho April 5, 2016 Rest of elements for negligence • Causation (physical causation) o Whatever action (breach of duty) that the defendant did caused the consequences o Intervening cause § Something else happened that prevented the defendant to keep the duty -> moving responsibility to the other cause • Proximate cause (legal cause) o Only held responsible for reasonably foreseeable outcome o If the plaintiff acted in a way in which a reasonable person wouldn’t, then the defendant’s actions don’t have proximate cause. Defense for Negligence • Assumption of risk o If the plaintiff assumed the obvious risk, the plaintiff recovers nothing. o Joe knew the risks for touching the power lines – he is out of luck. • Contributory negligence o When the plaintiff contributed to the harm they suffered through their own negligence. • Comparative negligence o Applies in Massachusetts o Balance between conduct of plaintiff and defendant, gives jury the mechanism to make the adequate adjustment o The defendant must be at least 51% negligent § The defendant has to be more negligent than the plaintiff § Jury decides the percentage § If the plaintiff and defendant are equally negligence, the outcome is $0 (no damages). § If there are $100,000 in damages, and the plaintiff is 40% negligent, the defendant only pays $60,000. (defendant 60% negligent) Strict liability • Extremely dangerous or hazardous activity o The defendant’s actions were extremely dangerous or hazardous • Causation o The defendant’s actions caused the damages • Damages • With strict liability, if the defendant does anything extremely hazardous, you will be responsible for anything caused due to your actions. • Extremely hazardous activity doesn’t always have to involve causations or damages as long as you don’t cause any bad consequences “Act of God” • Found under few insurance elements to exclude their liability • Doesn’t protect defendants from strict liability Product Liability Cases • Possible defendants if a product is defective o Designer o Manufacturer o Primary material supplier o Seller o Distributor o Advertiser • Possible plaintiffs (altered by possible defendants) o Single plaintiff o Multiple names plaintiff o Class of plaintiffs § Survey to find more people who were affected by the defected product § Class Action Lawsuit ú Similarly situated with respect to liability ú Efficient for court to bring everyone with similar situations together ú Plaintiff’s lawyer explains why court should agree with class action lawsuit • Products Liability Theories 1. Negligence (should check products to make sure there are no side effects) § Duty of care § Breach of duty § Causation § Proximate cause 2. Breach of implied warranty of fitness for normal purposes § Theory strongly favoring consumers § Companies would be responsible for potential damages under this theory, although their ‘disclaimer’ says otherwise § Under this theory, companies are implied to warrant the quality of the product § Defense: Misuse of product § The plaintiff doesn’t have to be someone who bought the product, as long as they used the product 3. Strict liability § Unreasonably dangerous product (instead of extremely hazardous activity) ú ‘State of the art’ defense • If products are inherently dangerous, the company that manufactures the product has to make them the safest they can • Lawn mowers evolved to significantly reduce the possibility of damages through using the product • If the product is safe (state of the art), but the customer got hurt anyway, then the law is in favor of the company since they made the product safe § Causation § Damages April 7, 2016 Products Liability Theories (continued) 4. Misrepresentation • Material fact about a product which would reasonably induce somebody to rely upon such representation • Reasonable reliance by the buyer on the representation • Damages 5. Breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose • Reliance on expertise of seller in choosing the product o Getting advice at Wal-Mart and a specialty store is different – when you go to the specialty store and rely on their expertise, then you would have a claim against the specialty store if the product failed. • Key is the consumer’s reliance Privity: Relying on relationship between the consumer and the provider
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'