Product Advertising and Liability

Product Advertising and Liability
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
Product Advertising and Liability
Defective product Case
In January 2020, the United States circuit court heard the Estate of Simpson v. GM, LLC case. The case was to handle the product liability that arose from the expulsion of the gas spring, which was attached to the metal rack belonging to General Motors, GM. The case’s complaint regarded the plaintiff’s design defect, which caused the Simpson accident due to the failure of the rivet spring due to the inherent weakness leading to severe injury during contention. Simpson was an employee at Dort Steel as a welder repairing and salvaging the large metal racks where GM had stored and transportation the racks. As such, Simpson sued the defendant stabiles, the spring manufacturer, the defendant keener corporation, the rack manufacturer, and other entities in the rack distribution and designs (Estate of Simpson v. GM, LLC, 2020). The defendants brought the motion of summary disposition. However, the court granted some companies while others were denied the motion. Notably, the product liability act at Michigan recognized that the manufacturers of the components should bear the product liability for the defectively manufactured products leading to the injury and death of Simpson. The failure of the gas spring as a rack component led to the injury and death. The case was complicated but led to affirmation, making the court orders to deny summary of disposition to Stabilus and the plaintiff’s motion for sanction against JW. As a result, the court awarded no cost injury to any party and the further proceedings defined no remand. Therefore, the court never retained jurisdiction.
Design Defect
Proving the design defect entails the description of the defectiveness of the product, which was the spring and the rack (Estate of Simpson v. GM, LLC, 2020). The plaintiff must approve that the spring caused severe injury due to the company’s negligence. Also, the plaintiff must present further evidence concerning the failure of all the companies to become responsible for the ineffective manufacturing of a product.
Manufacturing Defect
Manufacturing defects must get approval from the manufacturer. The defect is similar to the design defect (Jennings, 2022). However, it bears the difference that the defect existed in the product when the companies manufactured it.
Failure to Warn
The spring manufacturers never included the warning instruction that the item might cause an accident. Also, the rack never warned the users about the possibility of other components causing danger (Jennings, 2022). As such, the defendants were morally liable to compensate the complainant.
False Advertisement
The false advertisement exists in the breach of warranty conditions by the manufacturers in advertisement (Jennings, 2022). Also, the manufacturers never advertised the rack-designed features on the possibility of overextension of the sidewalls, which was foreseeable. Therefore, all the parties failed to din their advertisement criteria of creating warning to the users.
Contract Product Liability Warranty Theory
The UCC’s article 2 that governs contrast sales of goods and services requires the implosion of warranties according to the lesson learnt in class. The implied warranties comprise the Implied Warranty of Merchantability which is granted to the goods sold by the merchant seller. Also, an Implied Warranty of fitness for a defined purpose describes the situation where the seller promises the buyer the goodness of goods (Jennings, 2022). The promise comprises the suitability of the goods for use as proposed by the buyer.
Sources:
Esstate of Simpson v. GM, LLC. (2020). U.S. Court of Appeal of Michigan. No. 341961, No. 342291. Lexis Nexis. HYPERLINK “https://signin.lexisnexis.com/lnaccess/app/signin?back=https://advance.lexis.com:443/nexis-uni/laapi/document?id=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5XWS-MT21-F900-G394-00000-00&idtype=PID&context=1516831