Cases Analysis
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and name
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
Case Analysis
Wedge v. Planters Lifesavers Co,
Parties: Richard wedge is the plaintiff, while Planters Lifesavers Co is the defendant.
Facts: wedge injured his hand when he tried to close the jar that he had bought from the company. The jar shattered in his hand. He argued that he did not damage the jar, and thus it was the defects from the manufacturer that caused the injury. The defendant argued they were not aware of the defects thus are not supposed to be held responsible.
Procedure: Wedge took the company to court, where the district courts gave the defendant summary judgment. The court was not sure of the ruling to give as either party was not involved in the jar’s defect.
Issue: Whether a seller is guilty of the consequences of selling a defective product even if the defect was introduced by a previous party in the manufacturing chain.
Applicable laws: the strict product liability law states that the seller is held responsible for any injury that occurs due to a defective product sold, even if the previous party introduced the defect in the manufacturing process.
Holding: the summary judgment was reversed as under strict product liability, the seller is responsible for any damages resulting from a defective product sold even if the defect was introduced in the involved party’s manufacturing chain. The plaintiff won the case.
Reasoning: the court held the defendant responsible for the accident as the plaintiff did not have the time to identify which party in the manufacturing chain caused the defect. Therefore the injury was caused by no one else but the defendant, who was the seller. The trial should favor the Planters Lifesavers Co lightly.
Conclusion: I agree with the court ruling as the case was ruled following the strict product liability where the seller is responsible for the accident for selling a defective product.
Arrowhead School District No. 75, Park County, Montana v. James A. Klyap, Jr.
Parties: Arrowhead School District No. 75, Park County, Montana is the plaintiff, while Klyap is the appellant or defendant.
Facts: Arrowhead School District entered into a contract with Klyap to start teaching the school for the year 1998-99. Despite Klyap signing the agreement, he continued to look for other job opportunities. He was hired by Dome Mountain Ranch and had to terminate the contract with the school. He had agreed with the terms of the liquidated damages he failed to pay; thus, the school sued him.
Procedure: the school took the case to court so that Klyap would compensate them for the expense of hiring a new teacher. The court viewed the case in two ways where the school had hired a new teacher; thus, Klyap had no value to them and why Klyap continued to seek employment despite entering into the contract with the school.
Issue: whether Klyap is guilty of failing to pay for the liquidated damages?
Applicable laws: the Montana law of liquidated damages states that the party should not pay if the agreement were for individual benefit or interest.
Holding: the school should be held responsible for exploiting Klyap. It is so because, from the other cases, it is seen that the contract about liquidated damages was passed to prevent teachers from leaving school. Therefore Klyap has no right to continue paying to the school.
Reasoning: the court ruled that Klyap is innocent due to the school’s amount of salary. Additionally, the teacher who was hired after Klyap declined the offer received less salary than him; thus, he got nothing to compensate for the school.
Conclusion: I agree with the ruling as Klyap is not guilty of not paying the stated rates of liquidated damages based on the amount of salary and the school failing to inform him about the charges earlier.
Gaddy v. Douglass
Parties: Gaddy is the plaintiff against Douglass, who is the defendant. Both of the parties are Ms. M’s attorney- in- fact.
Facts: Gaddy, Ms. M’s attorney, wanted to declare invalid a power of attorney executed to Douglass on March 12, 1999. Gaddy was not contented with the shift in responsibility; thus, he had to seek legal intervention, hence taking action.
Procedure: Gaddy to the case to court when the will document belonging to Ms. M was given to Douglass instead of him. He was not aware that a power of attorney was executed to them by Ms. M. Douglass, being Ms. M’s third cousin, appealed that she could not execute the documents. As of March 12, 1999, Ms. M was suffering from chronic and severe dementia caused by the advanced state of Alzheimer’s disease.
Issue: whether Douglass should be guilty of executing Ms. M’s document without Gaddy’s consent?
Applicable laws: the law states that any case arising from a principal who has no capacity over the testimonies he/she makes should be rendered null.
Holding: the court held the defendant not guilty as when Ms. M was making the execution of the document was not in her right mind; thus, she could not make sound decisions. The court found the case void as the plaintiff was not aware of his principal’s well-being, thus had no right to sue the defendants.
Reasoning: the court’s ruling did not favor either party as the principal lacked testamentary capacity on March 12, 1999; hence any decision she made was not right. The defendant was innocent as he was not aware of the power being executed to the other party. Douglass adhered to the constitutional requirement of the cooperate responsibilities assigned to an attorney, and thus he was justified.
Conclusion: I agree with the court’s ruling as Douglass was not aware of his third cousins having another attorney. The court was not supposed to favor any side but rule based on the principal’s state of mind. Therefore the case was fair and just.
The United States v. Park
Parties: Park is the respondent, while the United States is the appellant.
Facts: Park being the president of Acme Company, was held responsible for having the food contaminated and insanitary in his warehouse. The food contained rodent contamination and thus was not safe for human consumption. Park was not responsible for any damages caused after the food was released; thus, the united states’ act regarding good and drug act was in question of the contamination.
Procedure: Park took action to court to ensure the right answer on the contamination was found. Park is concerned about his employees’ safety and not the residents; thus, he was not guilty of the rodent contamination despite the food being in his warehouse. The act should have ensured the safety of the food before storing it.
Issue: Whether Park or the act should be responsible for the contamination?
Applicable laws: the act states that any contamination found before the storage should the state should be held for it. Therefore Park had the reasons to seek justice against the accusation.
Holding: The United States was held guilty as Park ensured his employees were safe; thus, the government was responsible for providing safety for any food imported. The United States should have examined the food to ensure it was clean and free from contamination.
Reasoning: the ruling found the United States government guilty of failing to adhere to the food and drug act. The court promised Park that the government would rectify the situation to ensure the safety of consumers.
Conclusion: I agree with the court ruling because so long as the Acme employees are safe, Park should not be held responsible for any other outside contamination.
References
ARROWHEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 75, PARK COUNTY, Montana, Plaintiff, Respondent, v. James A. KLYAP, Jr., Defendant, and Appellant. No. 01-332. Decided: October 28, 2003
Roger A. GADDY, M.D., as Attorney-in-Fact for Ms. M, Respondent, v. George G. DOUGLASS, III and William P. Sherrod, as purported Attorneys-in-Fact for Ms. M, Appellants. No. 3797. Decided: May 17, 2004
UNITED STATES v. PARK(1975) No. 74-215 Argued: Decided: June 9, 1975
Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 17 F.3d 209, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS, 3081, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P13,784 (7th Cir. Ill. February 22, 1994)