The facts of this case pertain to the liability imposed to a manufacturer of a contemptible product. Common law imposes liability to the manufacturers of the defective product under the principle of strict liability. Black’s Law Dictionary defines strict liability as liability without fault. A case is one of strict liability “when neither care nor negligence, neither righteous nor bad faith, neither knowledge nor ignorance will save defendant (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1968 Ed., p. 1968) There is strict liability when one is made liable for something independent of fault, negligence, or intent after establishing sure facts specified by law. Strict liability can be committed even if reasonable care was exercised and regardless of the space of mind of the actor at that time.

Under the US Law, the traditional bastion of strictly liability includes liability for injuries caused by animals, ultra-hazardous activities and nuisance. For example, the law imposes liability to the possessor or any person who makes use of the animal independent of the presence of fault of negligence. Our law also imposes obligation to the owners of business enterprises and their employers to pay for the death or injuries to their employees even if the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. Another example of strict liability is the case of a manufacturer of a vehicle failing to meet the expectations of its customer.

2. Facts: Alex Hard was driving his car when he was involved in an accident. The impact was so strong that he was thrown from the vehicle. As a result of the accident Alex Hardy suffered serious and permanent injuries and he became paralyzed from the waist down. Hence, a suit was filed by Alex Hardy against the manufacturers of the car for breach of contract arguing that the car did not conform with the expectations and the defects were hidden. During the trial, the manufacturers argued that Hardy was drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and had fallen asleep at the time of the accident. For his portion, Hardy admitted that he has drunk at the time of the accident. He also admitted that he was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. Investigation also revealed that he fell asleep while driving. However, he argued that none of these was the proximate cause for his being paralyzed. He thus argued that because of the defects in his car, the axle of his truck broke, his vehicle rolled over and his door latch failed. It is because of the defective manufacture of his car that caused his accident.

Issue: whether manufacturers of the car should be sued for breach of contract and be held liable for the defects in the car despite the presence of negligence of the complainant

Held: The court ruled in favor of the complainant. The Jury awarded Hardy $50 M in compensatory damages and an additional $100 M in punitive damages.

3. I believe the ruling for this case will still be in favor of Hardy but the damages awarded in his favor should be mitigated in view of the contributory negligence of Hardy. Well-settled is the rule that the manufactures of a defective product is liable for any death or injury resulting to the consumers even if no contractual relations exist between them. The liability is imposed to manufacturers regardless of the presence of negligence on their part.

There are several reasons why common law imposes strict liability upon manufacturers of defective products. One reason for this is that it will not be possible for the consumers to prove the negligence against the manufacturers. The process that the products of the manufacturers undergo is not within the knowledge of the consumer. It will therefore not be possible to require as a precondition for suits to display that the obtain of a defective car is negligent.

Another reason is that imposing strict liability against the manufacturers provides an effective and necessary incentive to manufacturers to fabricate their products as safe as possible. It must be stressed that unless serious responsibility is imposed against the manufacturers they will continue to neglect providing for an appropriate standard of safety to all their products. The theory here is that by placing responsibility to the manufacturer, it is forced to take into account when deciding whether and how much to product the product the injure caused by it. (“Product Liability”) Business considerations demand that because of the risks attendant to the manufacture of car, the manufacturer may either discontinue the business or sell its products at a higher designate.

As between the manufacturer and the consumer, it is the manufacturer which is in the better position to protect the consumers against harm and injury caused by defects in the product either by insuring against liability or adding the cost of the insurance to the price of the product. One safety net which General Motors may avail of in case of death or injury to its consumers is by insuring against the liability and passing the cost of the insurance to the consumers. If in case the manufactures fail to avail of this remedy then they should be held accountable for any injury.

Strict liability may be accomplished by a series of actions, in which the consumer first recovers from the retailer on warranty, and liability on warranties is then carried back through the intermediate dealers to the manufacturer. The process is time-consuming, expensive, and wasteful. In this case, Hardy may sue the retailer and the retailer may eventually file another complaint against the manufacturers. Instead of being involved in multiplicity of suits, Hardy may directly file suit against General Motors.

Strict liability is also imposed against the manufacturers because by placing the product on the market, the seller represents to the market public that it is fit and he intends and expects that it will be purchased and consumed in reliance upon that representation. In the case of Alex Hardy, when he purchased his Chevrolet S-10 Blazer he relied upon the representation that the car is fit. He expected that the car will have the safety mechanisms that will prevent him from suffering serious injuries in cases of accidents. The manufacture therefore has the factual and ethical responsibility to ensure that cars it manufacture complies with this expectation of the public.

Another reason is that the cost of the accidents should be placed on the party best able to determine whether there are means to prevent the accident. When those means are less expensive than the costs of such accidents, responsibility for implementing them should be placed on the party best able to do so. Manufacturers have the means and the technical know how to install in its products safety mechanisms designed to prevent injuries. Only the manufacturers can produce their products better and more secured so as to avoid any injury. In this case, General Motors, despite its means and technical know how failed to install mechanisms that will ensure that the drivers of their cars are safe.

In the case of O’Brien vs. Muskin Corp. 94 N.J. 169, 463 A.2d 298 (Original Jersey, 1983), it applied the consumer expectation test in determining whether manufacturers of substandard products should be held liable. It ruled that a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Under this test, when there I no evidence, explain or circumstantial, available what sort of manufacturing flaw existed, or exactly how the design was deficient, the plaintiff may nonetheless be able to assign his right to recover by proving that the product did not create in keeping with the reasonable expectation of the spend.

Though the manufacturer should be held liable for the defects in its products, it is not the sole factor to be blamed for the accident. To impose against the manufacturers sole responsibility for the accident would be a serious violation of due process. Justice and equity demands that the liability of General Motors be equitable reduced because of the contributory negligence of Alex Hardy at the time of the accident. It must be stressed at Alex Hardy admitted that at the time of the accident he was drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and had fallen asleep at the time of the accident. The negligence of Alex Hardy therefore contributed to the injuries he suffered. If he only had not fallen asleep or he had worn his seatbelt or he had not drunk alcohol, the accident would not have happened and he would not have suffered the injury.

Thus, Alex Hardy was entitled to compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the defects in the manufacture of the car. But he is not entitled to recover the paunchy amount awarded by the lower court to him in view of his negligence.

4. If this case was filed in my court, I deem the ruling will level-headed be the same. Laws are imposed as a means to ensure that justice be served. It serves as an instrument for the perpetuation of justice and equity. It should not be utilized as a source of abuse. To contain General Motors entirely accountable for the injuries Hardy suffered will mean using the courts as an instrument for abuse. I believe the damages should be awarded because of the defects of the vehicle manufactured by General Motors under the “consumers’ expectation test.” It should however be equitably mitigated in view of the contributory negligence of Alex Hardy.