Strict Product Liability The Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp. case is about a mother, Susan Calles, suing Tokai Corporation the designer of the Aim ‘n Flame lighting rod and Scripto-Tokai Corporation the company that sold the product. This lawsuit happened after Susan’s daughter, Jillian, died from smoke inhalation due to a house fire caused by her other five year old daughter, Jenna, lighting the Aim n’ Flame lighting rod. On the court listener is states that Susan Calles sued, “alleging that the Aim N Flame was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it did not contain a child-resistant safety device. According to the complaint, a safety device was available, inexpensive, and would have reduced the risk that children could
…show more content…
If product is “unreasonably dangerous” it is going to affect the consumer the most. A product needs to provide precaution and a safety element for the consumer; these qualities should be met before the product hits the market. Not all products can be made safe for all consumers but the manufactures should make the product as safe as they can to avoid “unreasonably dangerous” products. Susan Calles believe that the lighting rod she purchased was “unreasonably dangerous” to her daughter.
2. A product is also "unreasonable dangerous" when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto contended that because its product was "simple" and the danger was "obvious," it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I do agree with this to certain extent. This product was “simple” and “obvious” to adults but not to children. The company argued that the product was more affordable and the safety of the product was obvious enough to not add the extra safety features. I think that since the product could have been made safer for more money the company should have done that. Children get a hold of a lot of things that they shouldn’t, so if a product can be child safe it should be. Money should not play a factor in the safety of the consumer. A company should not market a product that it knows may harm a customer, they failed to understand …show more content…
This company obviously had some safety issues if they had twenty-five similar suits under the same circumstance. I think that this product is “unreasonably dangerous” since it’s clear the product is causing injuries to its consumers. Although Calles new the dangers of the lighter it is obvious that this product had a safety issue. Our textbook states that a court may rule a product “unreasonably dangerous” when, “a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it. (Miller, 2016)” There was a way to make these lighters safer therefore company should have to be liable for its product. Companies need to keep in mind that their products could get into the hand of children and if possible they should have a child safety feature on their products. I don’t stand with the rule that the court made on this
If product is “unreasonably dangerous” it is going to affect the consumer the most. A product needs to provide precaution and a safety element for the consumer; these qualities should be met before the product hits the market. Not all products can be made safe for all consumers but the manufactures should make the product as safe as they can to avoid “unreasonably dangerous” products. Susan Calles believe that the lighting rod she purchased was “unreasonably dangerous” to her daughter.
2. A product is also "unreasonable dangerous" when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto contended that because its product was "simple" and the danger was "obvious," it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I do agree with this to certain extent. This product was “simple” and “obvious” to adults but not to children. The company argued that the product was more affordable and the safety of the product was obvious enough to not add the extra safety features. I think that since the product could have been made safer for more money the company should have done that. Children get a hold of a lot of things that they shouldn’t, so if a product can be child safe it should be. Money should not play a factor in the safety of the consumer. A company should not market a product that it knows may harm a customer, they failed to understand …show more content…
This company obviously had some safety issues if they had twenty-five similar suits under the same circumstance. I think that this product is “unreasonably dangerous” since it’s clear the product is causing injuries to its consumers. Although Calles new the dangers of the lighter it is obvious that this product had a safety issue. Our textbook states that a court may rule a product “unreasonably dangerous” when, “a less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it. (Miller, 2016)” There was a way to make these lighters safer therefore company should have to be liable for its product. Companies need to keep in mind that their products could get into the hand of children and if possible they should have a child safety feature on their products. I don’t stand with the rule that the court made on this