Mary’s Case
Car companies are expected to consider the quality of cars before putting them on the market. The primary reason for quality checking is that customers are expected to have little or no knowledge of the quality of the car. In the case of Mary, the cause of the accident is the faulty steering wheel. Therefore, the company is responsible for payment of damages caused by negligence. However, the company could have a point of argument; other factors could have caused the fault in the steering after the car left the manufacturer’s yard. Therefore, the court should make sure that the problem is associated with the manufacturer without a doubt.
Unreasonably dangerous product is one that poses a danger beyond the purpose intended for the product. Generally, a product is expected to be functional according to the guidelines provided. If the purpose of the product is dangerous, then, the product is reasonably dangerous. However, a product that poses an additional danger to the consumer, unrelated to the purpose of the product is unreasonably dangerous. Generally, the purpose of the product is used in lawsuits to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable danger.
The unreasonable danger is defined by two causes — first, manufacturing defects and design defects. Manufacturing defects occur due to an error in the production process. On the other hand, design defects arise due to a mistake in the design even when the manufacturing is perfect. Generally, manufacturers are not responsible for design defects. For example, a particular shape of steering wheels could be defective in the ease of control by consumers hence a design defect. On the other hand, a manufacturing effect could be in the form of a missing bolt or loose handles.
The provisions of the law do not favor any party. Responsibility in the accident forms the larger part of the consideration. For example, the responsible party takes the blame and pays for damages. Moreover, the law would not allow for defense clauses for manufacturers if the consumer was favored. Also, the provision for reasonable and unreasonable would not be given if the manufacturer was favored. Generally, the law on insurance covers all the parties involved without discrimination, and responsibility is used to determine the fate of each party.
Part 2
Civil law is generally associated with the advocacy for compensation for a particular problem. Criminal law, on the other hand, involves seeking to punish an individual or group for action. Both civil and criminal laws aim at answering the question of whether to punish or redress (Peers, 2016). Manslaughter and Murder fall under Criminal law. Manslaughter and Murder are both unlawful, but manslaughter is whereby the offender had no intention of killing. Murder, on the other side, involves a deliberate passion for killing.
Juvenile cases are always serious. However, the judgment for juveniles should consider several factors. First, a child cannot make reformed. The punishment given should not be as harsh as the one given to an adult. Generally, the punishment on a juvenile should leave an option for correction, and thus, the punishment should be lenient.
Part 3
Movies always have a message to pass to the audience. Double jeopardy, however, does not pass an ethical message. Generally, a movie should be focused on assuring harmony among the audience. For example, the use of revenge on a movie could negatively impact the morals of a society. The ex-lawyer is not right in his remarks. The shooting of a person is Murder. Instead, the lady should seek ways of compensation for the damages caused by proving to the court that she was wrongly accused.
Part 4
The provision of a college education could be more beneficial to society in general. For example, the offenders could have better lives after serving their terms hence transform. Moreover, prisoners do not have a source of income, and thus, their education fees should be provided by the government (Farley & Pike, 2016). However, the provision should only be from goodwill and no obligation. The provision for loans could also work correctly to aid in helping in providing education for inmates. Besides, the system is fair because individuals who are out of prison and working have the upper hand in servicing for loans compared to the inmates.
Part 5
The seriousness of a crime cannot be compared to another crime. However, the moral perception of an individual determines whether a crime is serious or not. For example, Jenny’s action is morally wrong; and could cost her, her job. Bob’s case is also dangerous in that he loses trust from his brother in law and could be sued. Generally, Bob’s situation is more difficult because it is risky.
On the critical thinking problem, ignorance cannot be used as a tool of defense by the man. The baseline is that the man has been involved in the theft. The other charges should be founded on the act of stealing. Moreover, the items stolen should be treated according to the law, and hence, the theft of the gun is also a case to answer. The woman was not obliged to show the man that the purse had a handgun. Therefore, the man should be charged both for stealing the purse as well as the handgun.
References
Farley, H., & Pike, A. (2016). Engaging prisoners in education: Reducing risk and recidivism. Advancing Corrections: Journal of the International Corrections and Prisons Association, 1, 65-73.
Peers, S. (2016). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: Volume II: EU Criminal Law, Policing, and Civil Law. Oxford University Press.