Fluent Essays

I just need this paper reworded. Turnitin is at 75\% copied so I just need it reworded. It can be shortened as long as everything is covered in the assignment below. Its really only suppose to be 4 to 5 pages but everything needs to be covered correctly. Who is good at revising in your own words. I cant turn in a copied paper. You shouldnt have to do a lot of research. That has been done.AssignmentNegligent TortVisit the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission https://www.cpsc.gov/ website. Click on “Recalls.” Choose one product that has been recalled.Describe the product subject to recall, including the recall date, recall number, and the reason for the recall.Analyze whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer.Discusses the following in relation to the product recall:Duty of CareStandard of CareBreach of the Duty of CareActual CausationProximate CausationActual InjuryDefenses to NegligenceAnalyze and apply a relevant consumer protection statute identified under “Consumer Protection” in Chapter 8 of your text in conjunction with the product recall that you have identified. Must address the topic with critical thought.Submit a four- to five-page paper (not including title and reference pages). Your paper must be formatted according to APA style as outlined in the approved APA style guide and must cite at least three scholarly sources in addition to the textbook I just need this paper reworded. Turnitin is at 75\% copied so I just need it reworded. It can be shortened as long as everything is covered in the assignment below. Its really only suppose to be 4 to Running head: MAGNET TOY 1 Negligent Tort on Magnetic Toys Troy Roberts-Mathenia BUS 670 Legal Environment Instructor Hooley January 28, 2019 Negligent Tort on Magnetic Toys Design Ideas Recalls Magnets Due to Risk of Ingestion It is harmful to children health. Recall date: March 06, 2014. Recall number: 14-126 Design Ideas and Neat life Rubber Ducky Magnets, and Design Ideas Blowfish and Splat Magnets. About 21,700 Rubber Ducky Magnets, 3,200 Blowfish Magnets and 2,000 Splat Magnets The small magnets can easily detach from the item. Whenever swallowed, magnets can interface together inside a youngsters digestion tracts and clamp onto body tissues, causing intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death. Internal injury from magnets can present genuine long-lasting health impacts. Analyze whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer. Product isnt liable for negligence. A claim in negligence is based on the assumption that the manufacturer owes an obligation of care to all the individuals who can reasonably be relied upon to make utilization of its product (Seaquist, 2012). On account of dangerous products, for example, those which, if flawed, could cause broad harm this obligation may be owed to anybody who may reasonably be affected by an imperfection in the product. This means that a claim in negligence isnt constrained by the principle of private of contract, which states that just a party to a contract can sue under it. A claim may be brought by a customer purchaser of the product, an individual who utilizes the product or an outsider bystander who is harmed by the product. The manufacturers negligence may be: • A failure to take care amid the manufacturing procedure, bringing about a particular product being blemished; • A failure to take care amid the design of the product, including a failure to carry out adequately careful research; • A failure to carry out viable tests; • a failure to give a viable warning of dangers; • a failure to recall a product, or to issue appropriate warnings if a danger winds up apparent after the product has been put into circulation. Liability isnt constrained to the manufacturer of the product different parties who provided segments or dispersed the product may be held liable in the event that they can be appeared to have been negligent. Discusses the following in relation to the product recall: a. Duty of care In tort law, an obligation of care is a legal obligation which is forced on an individual expecting adherence to a standard of reasonable care while playing out any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the primary component that must be established to continue with an action in negligence. The claimant must probably demonstrate an obligation of care forced by law which the defendant has breached. Thus, breaching an obligation may expose an individual to liability. The obligation of care may be forced by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or something else), yet eventually turned out to be related in some manner, as characterized by customary law (meaning case law). In any case, in product recall of magnetic isnt pursue of the obligation of care. b. Standard of care In tort law, the standard of care is the level of reasonability and caution expected of an individual who is under an obligation of care. Product is certainly not a standard of care. The prerequisites of the standard are firmly reliant on circumstances. Regardless of whether the standard of care has been breached is controlled by the trier of fact, and is usually phrased as far as the reasonable individual. It was famously portrayed in Vaughn v. Menlove (1837) as whether the individual proceeded with such reasonable caution as a judicious man would have practiced under such circumstances. c. Breach of the obligation of care In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence except if the claimant establishes both that they were owed an obligation of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that obligation. The defendant is in breach of obligation towards the claimant if their lead missed the mark regarding the standard expected the situation being what it is. d. Actual Causation Causation is the causal relationship among direct and result. That is to say that causation furnishes a means of associating conduct with a subsequent impact, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is characterized as the actsrues (an action) from which the particular injury or other impact arose and is joined with mensrea (a state of psyche) to contain the components of blame. Causation is just applicable where an outcome has been achieved and in this way is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses (Seaquist, 2012). e. Proximate causation In the law, a proximate cause is an occasion adequately related to a legally recognizable injury to be held to be the cause of that injury. There are two sorts of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is dictated by the however for test: But for the action, the outcome would not have happened. For example, however to run the red light, the impact would not have happened. For an act to cause a harm, the two tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact. f. Actual injury The final component that must be demonstrated in negligence cases is that there was an actual physical or mental injury. In addition, although the injury does not have to be physical, it must be real instead of imaginary (Mawdsley, 1993). Indeed, even in instances where there is negligence, damage suits wont be fruitful except if there is provable injury. Actual injury isnt issue here for product. g. Defenses to Negligence To effectively protect against a negligence suit, the defendant will attempt to negate one of the components of the plaintiffs cause of action. As such, the defendant presents proof that the person in question carried out not owe an obligation to the plaintiff; practiced reasonable care; did not cause the plaintiffs damages; and so forward. In addition, a defendant may depend on one of a couple of precepts that may eliminate or constrain liability based on alleged negligence. Three of the most well-known precepts are contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of hazard. For instance, you may not be found completely liable if the other party also was negligent. The product not claims to negligence due to not pursue the ruels. Analyze and apply a relevant consumer protection statute identified under “Consumer Protection”: Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, wholesalers, providers and retailers are considered in charge of any wound’s products cause. Regardless of any contractual limitations of liability if a product or any of its segment parts are imperfect its manufacturer may be liable for damage under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the customary law of negligence. An action under the CPA or for negligence can be brought for death, personal injury and damage caused to private property as the aftereffect of a product deformity. Neither sort of action can be utilized to compensate for unadulterated financial or consequential misfortune. This guide thinks about claims for negligence against the manufacturer of an imperfect product. See also our Out-Law Guide to Product Liability under the Consumer Protection Act. B.C. statutes give preferred protection to consumers over is afforded by the customary law. Legislation takes priority over the customary law, so all relevant statutes ought to be checked when dealing with this issue. E.g., Contracts that dont consent to statutes are unenforceable, although they would be enforceable at custom-based law. This chapter covers the protections gave to consumers by statutes. The statutes to counsel incorporate the accompanying: This legislation regulates contracts for the sale (or lease) of merchandise, yet not administrations. The SGA isnt worried about the morals of the transaction except if there is also an imperfection in the manner in which the contract is carried out, for example on the off chance that the products are not conveyed, are damaged, or are unfit for the reason for which they were sold. The protections are more grounded for new products than for merchandise that the purchaser knows are utilized. IntrcXluction. Amid the 1969 SURVEY year, two important and incredibly significant things of consumer protection became law in the Commonwealth. Powerful November 13, 1969, Chapter600 of the Acts of 1969 (entitled An Act giving common cures toa individual harmed by any act or practice declared unfair or misleadingly the Consumer Protection Act) allows consumers, both individually and as a class; t& establish actions for various damages and/or equitable help where unfair or beguiling practices have been utilized. Chapter 690 adds Sections 9 and 10 to Chapter 9SA of the General Laws. Powerful 18 days after Chapter 690, Chapter 814 of the Acts of 1969(entitled An Act amending the Consumer Protection Act and giving compensation to a consumer who has endured misfortune because of a beguiling act ar practice), also amends Chapter 9SA of the General Laws. It adds four new areas - Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 - and amends Sections and 8(2). The new areas grant authority to the attorney general to record suits or seek after other action to ensure harmed consumers. The two acts are complementary. Under Chapter 690, permanent directives or court orders which are granted under Chapter 814 are prima facie proof of unfair or beguiling acts or practices when alleged in litigation initiated under Chapter 690. The two acts were the primary such state acts in the United States. Since their enactment North Carolina has enacted a similar statute.1 Both the North Carolina and the Massachusetts acts give broad, thorough consumer protection, expected to balance the heaviness of caveat emptor. Damages and other help. On the off chance that the court finds for the applicant where no composed delicate of settlement has been made by respondent or where that delicate was unreasonable, recuperation will be the amount of damages actually endured or $25, whichever amount is greater. This is just for unintentional violations of the Act. For persistent or knowing violations of the Act or a bad faith refusal to delicate settlement upon demand, with information or reason to realize that the act or practice complained of violated Section 2, the court may award up to three yet at the very least multiple times the amount which would be awarded for a unintentional violation.2 Any act or practice specifically secured by the arrangements of Section 2 or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or the tenets and regulations promulgated by the attorney general ought to give reason to know that the act or practice was a violation of the Act. It would consequently pursue that refusal to delicate settlement upon demand for an act or practice secured would give the basis to applicant to recuperate twofold to treble damages, if effective in demonstrating his allegations. Although it is desirable home the consumers perspective, it is dependent upon the courts to decide if a patently unreasonable delicate of settlement will be treated as if no delicate made. The Act does not give any indications to this point. Tll4, demand necessities of Section 3 dont apply to prospectively pendants who dont maintain a place of business inside the Commonwealth or who dont keep assets inside the Commonwealths However. the alien respondent may voluntarily utilize the delicate arrangements of Section 9, by making a composed offer of help as soon as practicable after getting notification of an action initiated under Section 9. The alien respondent may restrict damages to the mount of the delicate, whenever wont by candidate, by paying that delicate into court. This limitation, as with inhabitant respondents, inures just if the delicate is reasonable in relation to the damages as decided. The court, upon appropriate application, may award such other equitable help, including a directive, as it considers necessary and legitimate in light of the current situation of the case! If the court finds that there has been, a violation of Section 2, the candidate will be awarded reasonable attorneys charges and expenses caused regarding the suit, independent of the amount in ,controversy. However, so as to encourage reasonable settlements the court wont award attorneys charges or expenses in a case where the solicitor has rejected a reasonable delicate of settlement made in due time as required by Section 9(3). References: Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). ROBERT E. KEETON, LEGAL CAUSE IN THE LAW OF TORTS 9–10 (1963).  March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506; (1991) 9 BCL 215 (24 April 1991). Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/. Boston College Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law (1969) Chapter 8: Consumer Protection, Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law Vol. 1969, Article 11. Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 23 regarding the spectators, and Harrison v Vincent[1982] RTR 8 regarding other sportsmen