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 …show more content…
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.