LEGAL CASE STUDY

Legal Case Study

Legal Case Study

This paper is primarily based on tort law and covers the area of product liability. There are two companies involved in this case, Megastores and Toys4U.

The question at the heart of tort law is why to impose liability on one individual for harm done to another. Reasons for imposing liability have been the subject of much debate. Some argue that the purpose of tort law is retribution: A wrongdoer must be made to pay for his or her actions. This purpose is most clearly reflected in the law of intentional torts, which punishes morally wrong conduct.

However, neither strict liability nor negligence is premised on moral wrongdoing. Because negligence liability is based on the reasonable person standard, a party may be held liable for negligence even if he or she was personally incapable of avoiding the harm. Therefore, some assert that the purpose of tort law is compensation. These observers also note that a theory of retribution does not explain why tort damages are paid to the injured party rather than to a third party such as a state fund.

Still others suggest that the purpose of tort law is deterrence: Punishing conduct of which society disapproves discourages others from engaging in it. It is unclear, however, how a theory of deterrence justifies liability for negligence, in which harm is unintentional.

Though not based on moral wrong, negligence at least retains the concept of fault: One party's carelessness has harmed another. Strict liability dispenses with the notion of fault altogether. Manufacturers and distributors of goods are held strictly liable for harm caused by defective products even if they exercised all due care in manufacturing and inspecting their products. Here, tort law imposes liability on the party better able to bear the loss. Manufacturers can spread the costs of injury among all users of their products by including the costs in the price. Liability also may encourage them to develop new manufacturing techniques or designs that can prevent future injuries. Similar justifications support the doctrine of vicarious liability, under which an employer is liable for torts committed by his or her employees during the course of the employer's business.

Finally, law and economics theorists abandon entirely the traditional focus on the individual tortfeasor and victim in favor of a societal view. They assert that a person should be liable for harm caused by another only if the cost of taking measures to avoid the harm would have been less than the damage caused. According to these theorists, this principle will maximize society's wealth, since people will spend money to avoid injury only when the benefits of avoiding injury outweigh the costs. They also argue that the reasonable person standard implicitly embodies this principle and, therefore, that common-law courts have always applied it, even if not explicitly.

Brief 2: Legal Situation after an incident at home

In this situation, damage has occurred due to mishandling of toy-product by the child resulting in breaking of glass ceiling and ...