1. Duty – Did The Soda Company owe a legal duty to Cody under the circumstances? The Soda Company owed Cody a legal obligation to provide a bottle that was safe for use and a certain level of due care. The Soda Company invested millions of dollars to provide the most state-of-the-art bottling facility. They have a significantly superior quality assurance process in place. The Soda Company takes every precaution to ensure that the bottles are of the highest quality.
2. Breach – Did The Soda Company violate their legal duty by acting or failing to act in a particular manner? A determination would need to be made as to whether The Soda Company breached this duty by doing or failing to do something that a “reasonably prudent person” would do under similar circumstances. The Soda Company put significant procedures in place to ensure the safety and quality of their bottles. They did not breach their legal duty by acting or failing to act in a way that a “reasonably prudent person” would do in the manufacturing of their bottles. …show more content…
Causation – Was it The Soda Company’s actions or inaction that caused the Cody’s injuries? Cody must be able to show that The Soda Company’s negligence caused his injuries. It must also be determined if The Soda Company could reasonably have foreseen that their actions might cause an injury. If their actions in some way caused Cody injury through a random, unexpected act of nature, the injury would be most likely deemed unforeseeable, and then The Soda Company would not likely be found liable. It was not The Soda Company’s actions or inaction that caused Cody’s injuries. They did not act in a negligent manner that would have caused Cody to be injured by their
2. Breach – Did The Soda Company violate their legal duty by acting or failing to act in a particular manner? A determination would need to be made as to whether The Soda Company breached this duty by doing or failing to do something that a “reasonably prudent person” would do under similar circumstances. The Soda Company put significant procedures in place to ensure the safety and quality of their bottles. They did not breach their legal duty by acting or failing to act in a way that a “reasonably prudent person” would do in the manufacturing of their bottles. …show more content…
Causation – Was it The Soda Company’s actions or inaction that caused the Cody’s injuries? Cody must be able to show that The Soda Company’s negligence caused his injuries. It must also be determined if The Soda Company could reasonably have foreseen that their actions might cause an injury. If their actions in some way caused Cody injury through a random, unexpected act of nature, the injury would be most likely deemed unforeseeable, and then The Soda Company would not likely be found liable. It was not The Soda Company’s actions or inaction that caused Cody’s injuries. They did not act in a negligent manner that would have caused Cody to be injured by their