Assume Mrs. Farzam has filed a suit against Rock Cookware, Inc. for the injuries that she sustained under the theory of strict product liability. Assume further that Mrs. Farzam would prevail in a cause of action against Rock Cookware, Inc. under strict

Our consulting team has come up with many different legal actions that Mrs. Farzam could take against Rock-Cookware. The first would be for her to file a negligence suit. For the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s negligence, they must prove that the defendant had a duty of care, that they had breached that duty, that there was injury caused by that breach, and that the breach was an actual and proximate cause of the injury. Unfortunately, Rock-Cookware does owe their customers the duty of safety. In Mrs. Farzam’s case, the breach was an actual cause of injury experienced by the plaintiff using the “but for” test. The plaintiff would not have been injured “but for” Rock-Cookware’s breach of duty to provide a non-defective product. In which case, Rock-Cookware may fall liable to damages for the injuries she suffered. Under negligence, a defendant can have three different types of defenses; contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and comparative negligence. Unfortunately, these three defenses may not hold up in front of a jury to lose or decrease the liability for the injury caused to Mrs. Farzam. If Mrs. Farzam were to file a suit under strict product liability, she would have to prove that Rock-Cookware’s product was defective and that it was the cause of her injury. For a product to be considered defective, according to the Direct Source International, Inc vs. Robins case, there must have been a manufacturing defect, marketing defect, or design defect. The defendant will be liable if the product falls under one of these types of defects. Rock-Cookware’s product could fall under the first two categories of having a manufacturing defect and marketing defect. The plaintiff can claim a manufacturing defect “when a finished product deviates, in terms of its construction or quality, from the specifications or planned output in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous”(Direct Source International, Inc vs Robins). As a result of Rock-Cookware’s defective ovenware product, Mrs. Farzam received serious injuries which Rock-Cookware will be liable for under a manufacturing defect claim. Also, “a defendant is liable if the lack of adequate warnings or instructions renders an otherwise adequate product unreasonably dangerous”(Direct Source International, Inc vs. Robins). Rock-Cookware had an obligation to their customers to warn them of dangers or instruct them on how to use the product so that they could avoid injuries. Rock-Cookware may fall liable if either of the two claims is brought up by Mrs. Farzam’s attorneys. In the case that Mrs. Farzam would prevail in a negligence or strict product liability claim, she would be eligible to receive compensatory damages. Her attorneys would definitely try for receiving punitive damages since the injury was severe. According to the Fischer vs. Johns-Manville Corporation and Bell Asbestos Mines, LTD case, under a strict product liability claim to receive punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove that the injury was “outrageous and flagrant” and that the defendants had knowledge of the substantial health risks presented to the customers. The Superior Court of Green, that handled this case, created this precedent for further cases for receiving punitive damages under strict liability. Mrs. Farzam can use the quality engineer from Rock-Cookware as evidence through a testimony to prove that Rock-Cookware did know of the defect in their product and that they did not release that information to their customers. Also, it was clear that the injury that was caused to Mrs. Farzam was very severe and something that should not happen to other customers. In using this evidence, she will be able to prove that she is eligible to receive a remedy for punitive damages and recover a substantial amount of money from Rock-Cookware, Inc.