Two twelve year old children are playing at one child\'s home when they find tha
ID: 332336 • 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 2 ND 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 – 2 nd Amendment is not one.)
Explanation / Answer
Engineering product liability law: Defectively designed product
If any sort of injury is resulted due to engineering product use, this can result in the defective product liability which could be the outcome of defective manufacturing, design or inability to facilitate 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 manufacturing of the product which could be resulting due to some faults in the manufacturing process.
Thus 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 injury of other kid or the user. In fact, various states have implemented strict product liability in which damages can be recovered by the injured individual without needing to show that there were any kind of flaws in the product resulting due to the negligence of the producer without any contractual relationship
Theory of recovery can be seen as a breach of warranty in which the main issue is to identify that quality and safety of the gun was according to the implied or express representation from the seller or injuries are resulted due to negligence in which the plaintiff has the responsibility of showing that no reasonable care was adopted by the defendant while designing the gun or facilitating proper warning or was not able to follow the stator requirements.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.