- Tags:
- Show more
- Pages:
- 5
- Words:
- 1375
Name Instructor Course Date Ethics People face product-related accidents every day. However, only a few of them get to receive compensation for the accidents from the manufacturers or salespeople. This may be because they did not take the time to understand the contract, never followed instructions on how to or got the accident out of ignorance. This paper assesses the product liability in the case of Maria and John. When the couple wanted a swimming pool, they settled on an above-ground pool that was manufactured by Swimco. Swimco gave them a deal for a mid-level model with free delivery and setup at only $2000. The sales contract indicated a cover for replacement of any defective for five years after purchase but in place of all other warranties whether expressed or implied and liabilities or obligations on Swimco’s part. However, their 4-year-old daughter fell into the pool when walking around the edge unmonitored. As a result, she suffered minor but permanent brain damage that affected her speech and memory abilities. As a result, Sally’s family sought compensation from the manufacturer claiming that the design was reasonably dangerous for children and hence Swimco should take liability for the accident. Given that the child slipped out of the parent's watch and went to the pool unmonitored, I wish to defend Swimco as not liable for the accident. Products can cause injury or death to the user especially if they are not well designed or if they are used improperly. Whenever the product harms the user, they are entitled to compensation by the manufacturer or supplier. However, the settlement raises many problems between the manufacturer and the user. The
Leave feedback