You are on page 1of 3

University of Cincinnati Submitted by: Ronald L.

Meyers
College of Business: MBA Program BLAW!!
Mid"#erm $ssay %uestion
&n t'e Mattel toy recall case(s)* t'e +roduct liability t'eories t'at t'e +arents mig't em+loy against Mattel
are as follo,s-
I. Negligence
$lements for +roving negligence-
!. .uty of Care.
/. Breac' of duty.
a. Standard of Care
0. Causation in fact.
1. Pro2imate Cause.
3. &n4ury.
Possible defenses for negligence-
!. Assum+tion of t'e ris5.
/. Contributory 6egligence.
0. Com+arative 6egligence.
a. Pure
b. Modified
c. &ntervening or su+erseding cause
II. Strict Liability
$lements for +roving Strict Liability-
!. Unreasonably dangerous defect.
a. .esign defects
b. 7ailure to test +roducts ade8uately
c. 7ailure to ,arn
d. $vidence on t'ese +oints can also be used to establis' a breac' of duty for
negligence +ur+oses.
/. Product reac'es t'e consumer substantially unc'anged.
0. .efect causes t'e in4ury
Possible defenses for Strict Liability-
!. Unavoidably unsafe +roduct.
/. Com+arative fault.
0. Assum+tion of ris5.
1. 9bvious ris5.
3. Abnormal misuse.
:. ;overnment contractor.
. State of t'e art.
<. Preem+tion.
III. Express Warranty - if the products had an expressed warranty
$lements for +roving breac' of e2+ressed ,arranty-
!. Affirmation of 7act or Promise
/. .escri+tion of t'e ;oods
0. Sam+le or Model
1. Basis of t'e Bargain
IV. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability This might be aimed at the retail seller of
the allegedly defective goods.
Page ! of 0 !=>/>/=!1
University of Cincinnati Submitted by: Ronald L. Meyers
College of Business: MBA Program BLAW!!
Mid"#erm $ssay %uestion
$lements for +roving Breac' of &m+lied Warranty of Merc'antability-
!. ;oods must be fit for t'e ordinary +ur+ose for ,'ic' t'ey are used.
/. ;oods must serve t'eir +ur+ose safely.
0. ;oods must be of average grade or 8uality.
1. Seller must be a merc'ant
3. ;oods must be ade8uately +ac5aged and labeled.
Possible defenses for Breac' of Warranty
!. 6o +rivity of contract.
/. Contributory 6egligence.
0. Com+arative 6egligence.
a. Pure
b. Modified
c. &ntervening or su+erseding cause
&f t'e statements made by +eo+le against Mattel ,ere +roven false* t'en Mattel mig't consider t'e
follo,ing torts-
&. Defamation (libel is ,ritten defamation* slander is s+o5en defamation)
$lements for +roving defamation-
!. Communication or +ublication to a t'ird +arty.
/. 9f false statements.
0. Made ,it' 5no,ledge of t'eir falsity or ,it' rec5less disregard of t'e true facts or in
negligently failing to ascertain t'e trut'.
1. #'at violate t'e rig't to ac8uire and maintain a good re+utation*
3. 9f anot'er
:. Public figures (in t'is case a cor+oration) must s'o, malice.
Possible defenses for defamation-
!. Consent
/. Political broadcast
0. Made by a government official in t'e +erformance of government duties
1. Made by +artici+ants in a 4udicial +roceeding
3. Statement made bet,een s+ouses
:. #rut' (in some 4urisdictions* 'o,ever t'e defendant 'as t'e burden to +rove t'at t'e
derogatory statements are true)
II. Disparagement
$lements for +roving dis+aragement-
!. Made false statements about t'e 8uality or o,ners'i+ of t'e +laintiff?s goods or
services.
/. @no,ing t'at t'ey ,ere false or ,it' conscience indifference as to t'eir trut'.
0. #'e statements caused actual 'arm
1. .amages not +resumed.
III. In!rio!s "alsehood
#y+es of in4urious false'ood-
!. Product .is+aragent
/. #rade Libel
Page / of 0 !=>/>/=!1
University of Cincinnati Submitted by: Ronald L. Meyers
College of Business: MBA Program BLAW!!
Mid"#erm $ssay %uestion
0. Slander of #itle
$lements for +roving in4urious false'ood-
!. 7alse statement made ,it' 5no,ledge of falsity or indifference to t'e trut'
/. Communication to a t'ird +arty
0. Loss of value or damages.
Possible defenses for in4urious false'ood-
!. Privilege
/. ;ood fait' assertion of com+eting +ro+erty rig'ts
0. ;eneral unfavorable com+arisons.
Page 0 of 0 !=>/>/=!1