You Be the Judge

Daniel Boone purchased a vehicle from Zoom Car Company, which was equipped with an in dash compass manufactured by the Corrigan Rulers company and Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. The Compass itself was installed by the car manufacture Zoom Car Company who in return sells the vehicles. On a dark night, Daniel trusted his compass to take him to his destination, but on his arrival his faulty compass led him to a high crime neighborhood. Daniel was drug out of his Zoom vehicle and beaten severely. Mr. Boone is suing Zoom Car Company for his medical expenses caused by his defective compass. Good summary of the facts.

Daniel Boone is suing Zoom Car Company for negligence. Boone would likely claim strict liability in this case because it is easier to prove. This is liability without fault, and would hold all in the chain of distribution responsible for the harm IF the elements are proven. Please review this principle in your text. Zoom failed to exercise assembling a product carefully, selling a negligent product design, and negligence in inspecting or testing the product that they installed. (Cheeseman, 2007, pg. 119) The plaintiff believes that the compass was not properly assembled at the Zoom assembly line; someone did not test the compass after it was assembled into the vehicle where the company would have seen that the compass was faulty. Daniel feels Zoom intentionally misrepresented the dash compass when he bought the vehicle from their company. What evidence of intentional misrepresentation exists in this case?

Misrepresentation occurs when the sell affirmatively misrepresents the quality of the product. (Cheeseman, 2007, pg. 119) Again, there is no evidence that this occurred. Seeing as the product was faulty, Daniel feels that the product liability should pay for all medical expenses from the substandard compass that led him into the dangerous neighborhood. Not only did Zoom Car Company fail to assemble the compass in the vehicle correctly, Zoom failed to warn Daniel that the compass was not always accurate and could be leading him in the wrong direction. Therefore, Daniel's litigation has been set and the plaintiff Daniel Boone has filed his complaint with Zoom Car Company. Even if Boone claimed this, what elements would he need to prove?

The defendant, Zoom Car Company has filed their answer to the plaintiff's complaint. In their response to Mr. Boone's complaint, Zoom Car Company feels the chain of distribution which includes Corrigan Rulers and Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. are strictly liable for the faulty compass. Henry R. Cheeseman states, "All parties in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for the injuries caused by that product. (Cheeseman, 2007, pg. 121) Good. Although Zoom may ultimately try to recover damages from others in the chain of distribution if it is found liable, this case asks you to address Zoom's liability.Zoom purchases the compasses from third party distributors who include Corrigan Rulers and Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc.

The malfunctioning compass was manufactured at one of the stated companies then installed at Zooms assembly factories. Zoom believes that the compass manufactures, failed to provide adequate instructions on how to properly install the in dash compasses. Please do not create facts. There is no indication that this happened in this case. As the defendants Zoom Car Company believe the plaintiff holds comparative fault in this case. Mr. Boone is partially responsible for causing his injuries based on his own negligence when he did not follow traffic signs pointing