Two twelve year old children are playing at one child\'s home when they find tha
ID: 1732607 • Letter: T
Question
Two twelve year old children are playing at one child's home when they find that the parents have accidentally left unlocked the cabinet in which a loaded gun is kept. One child carefully shows the other how the clip is removed, making the gun "safe." He demonstrates by pointing the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger. The bullet in the chamber (not in the clip) severely injures his friend. Prepare an expert engineer argument for the court on why or why not the gun's manufacturer should be held responsible for a "defectively designed product." Limit to one-half page. ANSWER WHY OR WHY NOT -- NOT BOTH DO NOT INCLUDE 2ND AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS (stripping the Court of power to decide this matter based upon common law) IN YOUR ANSWER. (HINT – treat this the same as you would a nail gun or staple gun. Pretend that the family lives in Canada but bought a gun manufactured in the U.S. This is an ENGINEERING product liability law question. There are two correct answers based solely upon the engineering – 2nd Amendment is not one.) Two twelve year old children are playing at one child's home when they find that the parents have accidentally left unlocked the cabinet in which a loaded gun is kept. One child carefully shows the other how the clip is removed, making the gun "safe." He demonstrates by pointing the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger. The bullet in the chamber (not in the clip) severely injures his friend. Prepare an expert engineer argument for the court on why or why not the gun's manufacturer should be held responsible for a "defectively designed product." Limit to one-half page. ANSWER WHY OR WHY NOT -- NOT BOTH DO NOT INCLUDE 2ND AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS (stripping the Court of power to decide this matter based upon common law) IN YOUR ANSWER. (HINT – treat this the same as you would a nail gun or staple gun. Pretend that the family lives in Canada but bought a gun manufactured in the U.S. This is an ENGINEERING product liability law question. There are two correct answers based solely upon the engineering – 2nd Amendment is not one.) Two twelve year old children are playing at one child's home when they find that the parents have accidentally left unlocked the cabinet in which a loaded gun is kept. One child carefully shows the other how the clip is removed, making the gun "safe." He demonstrates by pointing the gun at his friend and pulling the trigger. The bullet in the chamber (not in the clip) severely injures his friend. Prepare an expert engineer argument for the court on why or why not the gun's manufacturer should be held responsible for a "defectively designed product." Limit to one-half page. ANSWER WHY OR WHY NOT -- NOT BOTH DO NOT INCLUDE 2ND AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS (stripping the Court of power to decide this matter based upon common law) IN YOUR ANSWER. (HINT – treat this the same as you would a nail gun or staple gun. Pretend that the family lives in Canada but bought a gun manufactured in the U.S. This is an ENGINEERING product liability law question. There are two correct answers based solely upon the engineering – 2nd Amendment is not one.)Explanation / Answer
ANSWER:
GIVEN THAT
manufacturing manufactured goods legal responsibility law: imperfectly intended manufactured goods stipulation some kind of wound is resulted unpaid to manufacturing creation utilize, this can effect in the imperfect manufactured goods legal responsibility which might be the result of faulty manufacturing, plan or incapability to make easy sufficient warning or instructions related to the appropriate use of the product.
-> The common sort of liability related to the product is reflected when someone gets injured due to the defective developed of the manufactured goods which could exist resultant due to a number of fault in the developed procedure. therefore the mainly of the child has the full right to sue the producer of the gun on the account of a defective product which resulted in the wound of additional child or the user.
-> In fact, a variety of state contain implement severe product legal responsibility in which compensation can exist healthier by the wounded human being with no need to show that there were several type of flaw in the manufactured merchandise resultant due to the negligence of the producer without any contractual relationship hypothesis of revival can be seen because a break of warranty in which the main issue is to identify that quality and safety of the gun was according to the implied or articulate symbol from the retailer or injuries are resulted due to negligence in which the plaintiff has the responsibility of showing that no sensible mind be adopt by the defendant as scheming the firearm or facilitate good caution or was not clever to go after the stator supplies.
=================pc as well as sc
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.