Essay about Mgmt 520

3737 Words May 30th, 2014 15 Pages
Question :
TCO B. The "public comment" period closes on an OSHA proposed regulation, and your business had filed a public comment against the proposed regulation explaining that the regulation would not fix the problem that OSHA was trying to remedy, that the regulation would cost more than the problem itself, and that the regulation was a tax, not a safety change. List two arguments available to your company that may succeed in overturning the regulation.

Student Answer:

The proposed regulation would not fix the problem it is intended to remedy and that it would cost more. Also there would be a tax not a safety change, in which OSHA deals with health issues. Two arguments available would be arbitrary and capricious and/or
…show more content…
(15 points)

II. Discuss all defenses Ford Motor Company might have. (10 points)

III. Discuss any liability the City of Los Angeles may have. (10 points)

IV. Discuss any liability Chi-Chi's may have. (5 points)

Student Answer:

I. The negligence theory that can be used by Chanit against the Ford Motor Company can be as follows. It was the duty of care for Ford Motor Company to ensure that the door of the vehicle remained close when the car spun out of control. This is a normal safety measure. This duty was breached because the door opened and Chancit was thrown out of the car. Further, Chancit suffered fatal injuries directly because the car door flew open. There is legal causation. If the door had remained closed, Chancit would be alive. Harm was caused to Chancit and he died. The other theory that Chancit can use is the breach of implied warranty. It is an implied warranty that a car would have normal safety measures built into it and that would include a system by which the door would remain closed when the car was hit or spun. So the implied warranty for a particular purpose was violated. The manufacture Ford Motor Company was strictly liable. In accordance with Section 2 of the Restatement of Torts: Product Liability, this is a design defect. The design of the car should have been such that the door should not have flung open when the car spun. Ford Motor Company will be liable and compensation will be paid to the widow of Chancit. II.

Related Documents