Negligence is defined by a tort related to defective products in which the defendant has breached a duty of due care and caused harm to the plaintiff. In Amy’s case, her cosmologist, Monique Smith used a product made by the defendant, Blondey Blonde Co. to highlight Amy’s hair, which causing Amy injured on scalp. Therefore, I believe that the negligence is existed and because of several elements of negligence. In duty, which states that the obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk of harm, Blondey Blonde Co. didn’t fulfill the obligation and duty that not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk of harm. By applying the reasonable person standard, Blondey Blonde Co. didn’t owe the duty of care. Their chairman
…show more content…
In the case, the negligent party, Blondey Blonde caused the proximate cause if they do not pass the foreseeability test. By applying the foreseeability, Blondey Blonde has already received very few amount of complaints, while the company still assume their product are excellent and did not establish any follow up actions. Also, they did not clearly list out all of the appropriate of using the product, such as the proper way to store the product. Therefore, I believe that the product might injured their customers is foreseeable, and causing the proximate …show more content…
In the case, the product manufactured by the defendant supposed not be injured their users after applying their product. By applying consumer expectation test, the defendant also has the product liability since hair care products should not be harmful to their customer’s body. Also, the manufacturers owe a duty to design and provide safe packages for their customers. While the defendant, Blondey Blonde, did not fulfill their responsibility and could not provide packages, containers that are tamperproof. As a result, their product also has the defect in design.
In the failure to warn, the defendant, Blondey Blonde, should owe the duty to warn customers and users about the dangers of using these products. But the defendant, Blondey Blonde, their product only warns their customer if they get injuries present on the scalp, they will suggest not using their product. The insufficient warning might mislead the customers, such as Amy, who might get injured after applied their product. Therefore, their product has the defect, failure to
In the case, the negligent party, Blondey Blonde caused the proximate cause if they do not pass the foreseeability test. By applying the foreseeability, Blondey Blonde has already received very few amount of complaints, while the company still assume their product are excellent and did not establish any follow up actions. Also, they did not clearly list out all of the appropriate of using the product, such as the proper way to store the product. Therefore, I believe that the product might injured their customers is foreseeable, and causing the proximate …show more content…
In the case, the product manufactured by the defendant supposed not be injured their users after applying their product. By applying consumer expectation test, the defendant also has the product liability since hair care products should not be harmful to their customer’s body. Also, the manufacturers owe a duty to design and provide safe packages for their customers. While the defendant, Blondey Blonde, did not fulfill their responsibility and could not provide packages, containers that are tamperproof. As a result, their product also has the defect in design.
In the failure to warn, the defendant, Blondey Blonde, should owe the duty to warn customers and users about the dangers of using these products. But the defendant, Blondey Blonde, their product only warns their customer if they get injuries present on the scalp, they will suggest not using their product. The insufficient warning might mislead the customers, such as Amy, who might get injured after applied their product. Therefore, their product has the defect, failure to