Judge Paper: Boone V. Zoom Car Company
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Zoom Car Company is an automobile manufacturing company. The company installs many additional extras and features in its cars and amongst these is an onboard compass installed on the car’s dashboard which is manufactured by Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rulers Inc. Daniel Boone, a customer of Zoom, purchased a car from the company which unfortunately had a faulty compass installed in it. While trying to find his way using the compass one night, he got lost and ended up driving into a crime prone area where he was dragged out of his car and severely beaten up. Daniel is suing Zoom Car for medical costs arising out of his treatment expenses.
• Is there a valid claim for strict liability on the part of Zoom Car Company?
• Can Daniel’s injuries be linked to the faulty compass installed on his vehicle by Zoom Car Company?
• Could Daniel’s conduct be deemed negligent thereby be held partly responsible for his injuries?
Under the law, consumers are protected from faulty and defective products through placing liability of the same to the manufacturers and producers. Strict liability usually arises when products are found to be defective when leaving the manufacturer and reaching the market (Singer & La Fond, 2010, pg. 128-129). Such defects can be categorized as manufacturing or design defects and in other instances marketing defects which occur when a manufacturer fails to warn of possible dangers. Since the product (compass) turned out to be faulty by providing misleading directions, manufacturing and/or design defects can be made against it (pg. 130-131). Zoom Car Company should be responsible for thorough inspection of all its products before they leave their responsibility. Here, the company must ensure that all parts and additional equipment are in proper working order such that they will not cause harm to the end user. In this regard then the company is noteworthy of such a failure which had the unfortunate effect of causing Daniel to get lost and subsequently wander into a dangerous neighborhood.
The next issue is whether Daniel’s injuries can be linked to the defective product installed onto the automobile. The injuries suffered by Daniel can be directly linked to the defective compass which he used to get his directions, upon which he ended up getting lost and straying into a dangerous part of the city. It is from this latter fact that he sustained his injuries as the faulty compass failed to guide him effectively and he would therefore have not strayed leading up to his injuries.
Negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiff would arise if he used the product wrongly or if he did not carry out any action reasonable enough to prevent the occurrence. In this instance, Daniel seemingly used the product in the manner in which it ought to be used, however; due to its defective condition he was unable to get correct directions and ended up getting lost.
There is a valid claim for strict liability due to a manufacturing and or design defect on the automobile’s compass. The faulty compass was installed onto the vehicle and appears to be the primary reason as to why Daniel got lost in the first place. With this consideration in mind, Daniel’s injuries can be seen to have been as a direct cause of the faulty product thereby making the company liable under the theory of strict liability. Having considered this as well then, Zoom Car Company should be held liable for his injuries and should therefore pay for his medical cost and any other costs incurred as arising to Daniel as a result of the incident.
Singer, R. & La Fond, J. (2010). Criminal Law 5th Ed. New York: Aspen Publishers.