Arvo Lake 71 Year Old Retiree

Arvo Lake, a retired 71-year-old man, bought an air conditioner in May. The unit was installed and operated according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Unbeknownst to Lake, the unit contained a hole in the refrigeration system that allowed Freon, the coolant, to escape from the unit. By August, the unit had ceased cooling, and Lake’s residence reached a temperature of at least 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat caused Lake to suffer from hyperthermia, which caused circulatory failure and then death.

The executor of Lake’s estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty. Is the manufacturer (or anyone else) liable for Lake’s death under either a negligence or a strict liability cause of action? What is the difference between these two claims, and how do they differ from a breach of warranty claim? Try and be as specific as possible, preferably running through the elements using the facts from the Lake case. “Research from the U. S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission indicates that defective or unsafe products cause 29. 4 million injuries and 21,400 deaths each year. You or your child may be injured by something seemingly harmless or something you use everyday, such as a hair dryer, toaster, baby chair, toy, iron, coffee maker, air conditioner, car, hand tool or even your clothing. Product liability law gives consumers the ability to sue for and recover damages from manufacturers, distributors and vendors for injuries resulting from accidents caused by products. Strict liability is the term used to describe situations in which a person can be held liable for damages caused to another person even without negligence or other fault. Strict liability means “liability without fault,” therefore a person is liable whether or not they were negligent and whether or not they intended to do any harm. The law imposes strict liability on inherently or abnormally dangerous activities, or activities that are likely to cause particular kinds of harm. Strict liability is also often imposed on manufactured products, under the law of product liability.

Strict liability claims do not involve proof of whether or not someone acted reasonably or used appropriate care in manufacturing a certain product. The manufacturer of the air conditioner could be found liable for the death of Mr. Lake if it is found that the air conditioner was defective, regardless of whether the manufacturer or supplier exercised great care when designing and manufacturing it. Mr. Lake’s family does not have to demonstrate that the manufacturer or vendor was negligent or careless, only that a defect in the product caused Mr. Lake’s death. In a negligence claim, Mr.

Lake’s family must show that a manufacturer or retailer had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the process of manufacturing or selling a product and failed to fulfill that duty, resulting in his death. Negligence consists of doing something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do under the same or similar circumstances; or failing to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the same or similar circumstances. A breach of warranty claim arises under the law of contracts, where the law imposes certain “implied warranties” on the sale of goods.

Such warranties include the warranty of merchantability (that the goods are in proper condition for use and free of defects), and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (e. g. , air conditioner must be able to keep a room or house cool. ) A breach of warranty is often referred to as an implied warranty because the law assumes that they apply even if they are not expressly stated. If a product does not meet these standards, the purchaser may have the right to return it and get back the purchase price, or sometimes to receive monetary damages.

The law of contracts covers economic loss caused by the breach of warranties in the sale of goods. The Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, also deals with the sales of goods and the implied and express warranties of merchantability in the sales of goods §§ 2-314 and 2-315. Question 2 we conclude that the district court correctly decided that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the Reardons’ statutory claims, but we find that the CERCLA lien provisions do violate the fifth amendment due process clause