Business Law Legal Criteria

Question: Discuss about the Business Lawfor Legal Criteria. Answer: Facts of the Case In 2013, a fatal car accident was investigated by the Transport Canada, which appeared to have been linked to the failure of ignition switches of General Motors Co. which led to twelve deaths in US. In Canada, there had been one such complaint, where a severe accident was caused after the vehicle went off road and collided with trees. The driver was the sole occupant of the car and he was not wearing a seat belt. He was fatally injured due to this crash (Keenan, 2014). Legal Criteria for Liability Due to negligence The legal liability in this case is stemmed from the tort of negligence. When a person owes a duty of care, to some other person, due to the work undertaken by them, and this is followed by a breach of the duty of care, which results in harm or loss to the other person, it is a case of negligence (Lambiris Griffin, 2016). And in such cases, the injured party can claim for damages caused, in form of monetary compensation. Such damages are not only available for physical injuries, but for mental agony as well (Emanuel Emanuel, 2008). The rationale behind the tort of negligence is to affix a responsibility over the individual, in doing their work, so that they do not harm somebody, who is though in proximity to such work, but not responsible for its proper attainment (Trindade, Cane Lunney, 2007). The legal liability for this case study arises from the negligence of General Motors Co. which failed in its duty of care, as per which it had to prepare the products which were safe. Instead, it manufactured faulty ignition switches, and this fault led to the accident of the driver of the vehicle. Possible Plaintiff(s) The plaintiff in this case would be the man who was fatally injured in the serious crash, through his legal representatives. Another case can be made in this regard by all such individuals who owned a vehicle, which contained the faulty ignition switches, can be deemed as the plaintiff, due to a breach of duty of care. Possible Defendant(s) The defendant in this case would be General Motors Co. as they were the manufacturers of the faulty ignition switches. Duty of Care To establish that a case of negligence is present, the first requirement is to establish duty of care. Duty of care is the necessity of the individual undertaking the task, to be careful in their work, so that the other person may not be injured (Abbott, Pendlebury Wardman, 2007). A leading case where the duty of care was established for the manufacturer is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100. In this case, the dead snail found inside the bottle of the ginger beer bottle manufactured by Stevenson was held to be a breach of duty of care. As a manufacturer, Stevenson had to duty of ensuring that his product was safe (British and Irish Legal Information Institute, 2017). In the same manner, as the manufacturer of the product, which is the car, General Motors Co. had the responsibility of ensuring that the assembled car had to faulty parts. And so, they owed a duty of care to its consumers. Standard of Care and its Breach A standard of care has to be ensured while undertaking any task. So, any foreseeable risk or threat has to be avoided and steps are to be taken to ensure that the work done is free from occurrence of such risks. When such a duty of care is breached, or is unfulfilled, the second element of negligence is met (Turner, 2013). In Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP), the defendant was warned numerous times, regarding the possibility of fire due to poor ventilation and yet he ignored them. So, when the fire occurred, the defendant as held to have breached the duty of care. This was because the risk was clearly foreseeable and could have been avoided (Commonwealth Legal Information Institute, 2017). General Motors Co. ought to have known that a faulty part would lead to an accident. Yet, the part was included in the vehicle, which led to the accident. So, there was a clear breach of duty of care. Causation of Damage The next element deals with a direct causation between the breach of duty of care and the loss caused (Statsky, 2011). So, firstly the breach of duty of care has to result in harm. This has to be followed by a direct link between the injuries caused, to the breach of duty of care (Harvey Marston, 2009). Here, the failure of General Motors Co. in assembling its manufactured vehicles in safe was the direct reason for the malfunctioning of car, which led to the driver losing his life, due to the fatal accident. Hence, there is direct causation between the breach of duty of care of General Motors Co. and the accident caused. Possible Defenses When a case of negligence is raised by any one of the parties, a common defense which is used by the parties is contributory negligence. When the injured person, fails in fulfilling the duty of care, which they owe to themselves and this contributes in the injury which is caused to them, it is a case of contributory negligence. In such cases, the damages awarded to the injured party, is reduced by the amount of their contributory negligence (Dongen, 2014). In Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291, Davies was held to have contributed to his injuries. This was because he was standing at the lorrys side which factored in when he was injured. Due to the contributory negligence of Davies, the court reduced the amount of damages, which were awarded to him, in a proportionate manner (Swarb, 2016). In this case also, the contributory negligence of the driver can be established. This is because the driver was not wearing the seat belt, which could have saved him in such a serious accident. But, as he was not wearing the seat belt, he could not be held back at him seat and hence, this contributed to his injuries. Accordingly, the damages awarded to the driver would be diminished by a percentage, which would be decided by the court of law. References Abbott, K., Pendlebury, N., Wardman, K. (2007). Business law (8th ed.). London: Thompson Learning. British and Irish Legal Information Institute. (2017) Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932). Retrieved from: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. (2017) Vaughan v Menlove. Retrieved from: https://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1837/424.pdf Dongen, E.V. (2014). Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston: Brill Nijhoff. Emanuel, S., Emanuel, L. (2008). Torts. New York: Aspen Publishers. Harvey, B., Marston, J. (2009). Cases and Commentary on Tort (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Keenan, G. (2014). Fatal crash in Canada may be related to GM recall. Retrieved from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/fatal-crash-in-canada-may-be-related-to-gm-recall/article17488190/ Lambiris, M., Griffin, L. (2016). First Principles of Business Law 2016. Sydney: CCH. Statsky, W.P. (2011). Essentials of Torts (3rd ed.). New York: Cengage Learning. Swarb. (2016). Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd: CA 1949. Retrieved from: https://swarb.co.uk/davies-v-swan-motor-co-swansea-ltd-ca-1949/ Trindade, F., Cane, P. Lunney, M. (2007). The law of torts in Australia (4th ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Turner, C. (2013). Unlocking Torts (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.