PRODUCT LIABILTY in Product development and manufacture | Moses Manuel | Skillshare

Playback Speed


  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

PRODUCT LIABILTY in Product development and manufacture

teacher avatar Moses Manuel, Entreprenuer | Lecturer | Author

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

10 Lessons (38m)
    • 1. WHAT IS PRODUCT LIABILTY

      1:50
    • 2. Evolution of PRODUCT LIABILTY

      3:43
    • 3. What is negligence

      3:36
    • 4. Understanding duty of care

      3:46
    • 5. Understanding breach of duty

      3:22
    • 6. Understanding causation

      4:20
    • 7. Understanding Damages

      4:30
    • 8. Applying negligence theory in production

      4:27
    • 9. Defenses part one

      3:52
    • 10. Defenses part two

      4:58
  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.

20

Students

--

Projects

About This Class

Whenever you manufacture, produce or sell products you need to understand product liability.

Product liability is: A manufacturer’s or seller’s liability for any damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, users or bystander as a result of a defective product.

Product liability focused on the nature of the product and conduct surrounding the design, production, sale of the product etc unlike general torts which focus on the persons involved.

Product liability law evolved from NEGLIGENCE and CONTRACT LAW as a result for a need to protect consumers and this meant modernizing the laws to ensure doctrines didn’t result into unfair results

You need to know the general elements that have to be there when filling lawsuit on product liability if you are dealing with defective products.

In addition to defect there are 4 primary theories used in product liability lawsuits, i.e

  1. Negligence
  2. Breach of warranty
  3. Strict liability
  4. Misrepresentation

All of which we shall look at in detail in this course.

LETS GET STARTED!

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Moses Manuel

Entreprenuer | Lecturer | Author

Teacher

Moses Manuel has over seven years’ experience in lecturing BUSINESS, LEGAL & DEVELOPMENT related studies

He is the founder of ZERITE VENTURES, an educational company that makes it easy for students and professionals on various fields to access educational materials and interact with each other making education available for all. He is also the host of ZERITE NETWORK a YOUTUBE channel that offers simplified videos on Business and legal related topics

See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
    0%
  • Yes
    0%
  • Somewhat
    0%
  • Not really
    0%
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.

Transcripts

1. WHAT IS PRODUCT LIABILTY: imagine you buy this product from given shop and then it turns out to be defective. And so it causes you injury. So what I'm going to do? Well, you want to send somebody right? But exactly what is it that you're suing them for? Hi Most his minder ongoing took a boat product liability. Productive ability. Fourth under civil thoughts. Now I thought his tortoise a civil wrong as opposed to it being a crime. So a civil wrong is basically an offense against another person. Well, a crime is an offense against the state. So as a civil Rome, a thought is actually an action that causes harm to determinate person with the intentional or not not being a breach of contract when they're about a possibly talking about an artificial person, G companies or natural possum people product labaton Garland is a manufacturers or sellers liability for any damage or injury suffered by a buyer, user or a bystander. As a result, off a defective product, basically productive ability focuses on the nature off the product and the conduct surrounding the design production sail off the product. TTC, unlike general talks, would focus on the relationship between people. And so if you're going to sue for product liability in addition to the product being defective, therefore other theories which you can use to support your kiss and the 1st 1 these nickel just second on this breach of warranty, the 3rd 1 is strictly ability on the last one is misrepresentation. They're going to look at all those on some details in the coming lessons up there. Just the fact the intention is just for you to understand what productive abilities. So going to look at all those in details in the coming lessons do have a lovely day. 2. Evolution of PRODUCT LIABILTY: Hi. So the last lesson introduced productive ability. But the question is, how did it come into existence? So productive ability sort of just evolved out off two things. Negligence and contracts in contracts. There is that aspect off cabbage empty, which simply meant by a beware the idea being torn, the buyer to take a careful look as to whatever it is that they're buying the problem with these ideas that inasmuch as your warning you what if you're just selling you something bogus and then attaching a warning tweet, See? Still doesn't really make much sense, now, does it? In fact, what used to happen for the world happened is that sellers time to get away with saying defective products as long as they said well covered emptor applies. So in a lawsuit regarding such the low, hard to become sort off that revolved that could handle such kind of issues. Now, how did you do this? Sort of the way that the law evolved Jackie off. These was to try and eliminate the riveted of train in most of these setups. So primitive doctrine is simply of the idea that only artistry contract can sue for benefit from a given contract and therefore third parties are supposed to sue in a given contract. In fact, having a problem with contract law there is a cost on contract law. One of my courses. You can just check it out is how the privilege, doctor and can be unfair issues to do with product liability. It's a good supermarket, okay? And you buy something and nothing turns out to be defective. In fact, it hurts you. So what do you do? Of course you need to see somebody, right? So who are you going to say? Well, you could say this for market. The problem is that the small market are not the ones who manufactured this thing. If you trade to Sudan manufacturer, there is no contact between you and the manufacturing. But there's a contract between the spot market on the manufacturer. And of course, you can see how pretty in that case is going to favor you. This law, the idea off riveted, was changed in the ruling. In the case off Mark fasten the big motor car company 1916 factor case was something like this. The defendant Buche Motor Company sold a car to the retailers who dirty such went up selling it to the plaintiff. So when the plaintiff was driving the car out off, you know, in a normal way, it collapsed due to our weak, Wouldn't well, And so the plaintiff decided to sue the man factor in this case, Buche Motor and not the tail. If you look at that case, of course, you could have just said, Yeah, he's not going to go far because of the previous doctor. But that was not the case in this particular case. Justice Cardozo made the following comment. If the nature off a thing, he said that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril where negligently made the manufacture of this thing off danger is under a duty to make it carefully. If not, the manufacturer may find itself liable for person injured beyond the immediate sell. Those those the ruling I mean, the manufacturer could not to get a deal riveted doctrine. They ended up being formed liable, and that was just the beginning off product liability and basically authorities after their European. The standard productive ability is from the fact that in different to get away till it currently is. We needed to eliminate the private doctrine, and I also find a way to go around the all coverage emptor doctrine. Have any questions, let me know and see in the next lesson. 3. What is negligence: in the first video, we pointed out that another for nuclear is to be successful. You can't rely on negligence, strictly ability, Mr Presentation and Breach of Warrant. In this video, we're going to focus on Nickelodeon's. The only thing you have to remember is that when it comes to productive ability, become so anyone who is along the chain off production of this particular product there about the manufacture and sale at the retailer, whatever okay, and they can be sued gently. Or they can be suit individual to the time negligence simply mints. The failure to consider is the standard of care that a reasonable, prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation and short negligence is both an act or omission, and by that I simply mean doing something that a reasonable person will not or failing to do something that is the number person will, though the purpose off negligence is simply to protect others from, well, understandable risks that could be the result off something that could have been foreseen, OK and then corrected. Some of the questions that caught straight to seek answers to will include what would be the cost to make a product safer and number two, would it be reasonable to spend a few more off the manufacturers dollar on the product to prevent greater harm to the consumer? That's a you company, okay, is manufacturing ladders and then you need to use that in tips off bold to put your letters together and then realize that love for your ladders to probably hard. The weight of somebody waiting around £165 will be required by uneven, stronger board. And that means a few extra pennies on your budget part bolt. So you have to make a decision. Do you go with what you normally use, or do you buy extra? You know these box now, If you don't do that, you understand what is the risk here? The risk is somebody may end up getting heart using Linda, and that is going to be more expensive in your company, as opposed to just buying these bolts and using the money ladders. So that is the kind of decision that your company love to make. Okay, we avoid product liability, or do we save a few extra pennies in this case, Number four Nicholas to actually be, well, nuclear's. It has to meet the following for CRA tear Zarella, it must have the falling for elements. Number one is a duty of care, the second on his breach of duty of care. The 3rd 1 is foreseeability or concession and the last one is injury. But they're going to look at all those in details in there. The coming videos then think of understand, is that all those four things have to be there. Never forget to qualify and negligence. If one of them is missing, the case falls apart. So here's how authored comes together. The manufacturer, when this case is going to be the defendant, was the plaintiff a duty not to make defective product? Okay, there is a duty of care, them activated products. Then they're in breach of this duty. This bridge therefore courses injured to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffers actual damages that are recoverable as a result off this bridge. So we're going to look at all those four elements off on emergency details in the coming videos after their you understand what predictive abilities so far? Um, how it came into existence and what nickel just is. I'll see in the next lesson. Do have a lovely day 4. Understanding duty of care: in the last lesson introduced new projects, and we also talked about the fact that stars for elements that is duty of care, breach of duty, of care, concession and injury to the plaintiff. Now, in this lesson is supposed to look at our that we're going to look at duty off care in productive, habitual lawsuits based on pledges. The court will always ask this question. Does the defendant or the plaintiff duty of care? Now the defendant in this case is the manufacturer and the plaintiff is the plant, the idea being If there is no duty of care, then there is no nickel genes. As a manufacturer, you owe a duty to the plaintiff to refrain from selling products that contain on unreasonable risk. Off hump. The biscuit is that if you're the manufacturer, then we expect your with the court expected for to make sure that your products carefully produced. One thing to remember here is that reasonable care is not the same us perfect care. It's a question of foreseeability there is. Can we anticipate the risk duty off care in negligence theory is one off reasonable nous and not perfection. So the question therefore is. How did the court determined these duty of care? Now the normal things of the country look at from the social policies to justice. Fundamental fairness. The courts can also go ahead and examine the relationship that exists between the parties. Basically, between the defendant on the plaintiff in terms off, who is more knowledgeable. Dan. Yeah, it assumed that, um, someone buys electrical appliance in the person is actually an electrician. He buys these electrical forever, and then it's supposed to use them in wet area. So supposing the manufacturer set off did Putin warning, stating that these things are not waterproof and this guy goes ahead and uses them in that area and we'll get touched. So are we supposed to blame the manufacturer? In this case, then size was a nutrition is supposed to have known that as much as there was a warning, you might ask for the purpose off the warning when the purpose is simple. See, this company is not just selling to Electrician's. It could be selling to some late parcel. So the lay person has little because that is our assumption is has little knowledge about electrical plans as opposed to the electrician's. So the company is under a duty to put that warning, okay. And as much as they also did it to make sure that whatever they're producing is defective now the other thing that you're soft understand is that companies are not necessarily and application to put a warning in whatever they're producing. I mean, they don't have to warn, you know, to put your hand in the flame and as much as the man also not warn you not to touch the cutting blade in pencil, for example, in a parcel, although they have to make sure that whatever, in this case, if you produced love to make sure that you are God, it's are produced in such a way that even if it's the power, so okay, the blood but is covered. So that is what the tough cases about their ideas that you have the all the plaintiff duty no to produce defective products. So again you might say, Well, we don't really care about that in our country, but remember, you're going to be doing business people from your country. You may end up having to meet standards of other countries. If you are supposed to do business with them. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll see in the next list. 5. Understanding breach of duty: is a producer, manufacturer or seller, you or your buyers and duty off care. Now that is something that established in the form a lesson you're not supposed to make produce or even sell them productive, effective, at least not on. You can foresee such risks in this lesson. You're going to look out. Breach of duty, Theo Plaintiff Discuss The buyer is supposed to prove to a court that the defendant who's the manufacturer, did in fact all them a duty of care and actually breached that duty a breach of duty. Or because when the manufacturer fails to act with reasonable care under the circumstance by reasonable care, the court will hold them on fracture to the standard off experts in that field. One of the ways that the court will decide if the man fortune has bridged duty is through the calculus off risk formula, also known as carcass off the pigeons formula or simply hand formula after judge hunch, who came up with a good way to understand this formula is through looking at the case off United States v. Carroll towing company 1940 nights. In this case, there's a butch that is guarding flood to the bodies tied to a dock and because they have to their diver boards, okay, Because they have to keep on moving the people. The dog moved the boat to flood it and failed to secure it properly. And so it ended up drifting, okay, and it hit a tanker. So there's out of that boat sunk. And in the lawsuit, a cut in this guest there are two issues still sunk a boat, and that is they lost flat. When the case was presented before Judge Hunt introduced, he sort of introduced a new aspect which, like the fact that the boat was left without a crew, did not mean that the owner of the boat as much as he'd lost his boat, was to be exempted from liability like the rest. So to make the case shot, there are three variables which this judge looked into the probability that the boat will break away the gravity off the result in injury if it does, on the burden off adequate precautions. So these are the court look twin trying to establish breach off duty. This formula has been refined to look like this. Where he is the probability of injury. L is the severity of injuries on B is the burden of precaution. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this formula is through looking at the case off cream show. The Ford Motor Company 1981. In this case, the jurors concluded, Dutch button off precaution was little compared to the probability off home to the plaintiff, and therefore, liability should attach because of the severity off the plaintiffs. Danger when trying to establish if somebody bridged duty or not, that formula okay, hands formula is the easiest one to use. In fact, the context will always change. That is the reason why it's hard to have one particular way off. Simply try and figure out if duty was breached or not. But remember has a plenty. If you have to prove that the defendant or do your duty, and that the defendant actually breached that duty in the next lesson, agreeing to look out concession. I'll see you in the next lesson was almost If you have any question, let me know. Do have every day 6. Understanding causation: high in the last lesson. We talked a boat, but it just get and well in productive Babbage lawsuits based on negligence. It's not just enough for you to prove that the product was defective and that, in fact the defendant in this system and fracture did breach there. Do you also have to show concession? As in, you have to show that the defendant's action did cause the injured in this lesson. We're going to look at concession when Trinko Session one has to show to thinks the one actual costs and number two approximate or legal costs actual causes, actually easy to prove. I mean, the only days to use the but for test. Simply put, if it wasn't for the defendant's action, whatever it is that happened would not have happened. And that is fairly straightforward. It's a by a micro, and it's not properly built, some faulty wiring in it, and so you plug it in, catches fire. Bernstein. The process it hurts in the process may be, you know, no, that is easier to prove because you know it's going to be straight forward again. The microbes was 40. It resulted into fire and blah blah, blah. Whatever happened, happened. So that gets is simply proving actual costs now proving legal. Approximate cost, on the other hand, is not because you also need to do that. Okay, Actually, cost is not enough. It's approving. Legal or proximate cost, on the other hand, is a bit tricky because you have to show two things. Number one foreseeability and number two reasonable nous. Another trained answer. The question off. What's the manufacturer aware off the possible defect on differ defect was foreseeable then , could reasonable methods be used to prevent the defect and subsequently, the injury? You know, the court is always trying to be fair to both parties. And so in most cases you realize that even if you can prove that the defendant's product was defective, you still have to prove that the defendant was not positioned to foresee the injury occurring and therefore decided not checking step to prevent because otherwise you're going to succeed in a suit against the defendant for product liability based on Nick alleges, is that this still goes back to the aspect off care and the question is going to be did the manufacture. I use due care, knowing all that it's knew about its products performance. I guess that even Maxie's one easier is false. Crafts case. So here's the case. There's a train. And then there's this passengers trying to get into the trend. The problem is that it has already started moving. So what happens is that person brushes tries to get in and one of the guards looking training strange to have to pass on on boat moving trend. Right? And there's this other guard who's pushing the person in. Yeah, it's not one of those electric bullet train celebrities. So in the process, this passenger drops a bug on the really. So the bugs scurrying fireworks, which is not known to the gods. And so the fireworks explode and the impact sort off knocks. One of their skills, that is some distance and Miss Pulse graph was standing close by, gets hot by one of the skills that fell down. She then decides to sue the railway to the question here is, is the railway responsible for whatever happened because he's because he's suing for a product like village. In this case, concession was the issue. There was no direct concession between was scale falling and you know, the gods trying to put somebody in the train document or simple. The guards had no idea what the but what was in the buck. And so they had no way of for seeing the consequence off directions. So that is the reason why if foreseeability because it's missing, then the case is not going to hold. So after their you understand the lesson. If there is any question, let me know, and I'll see in the next lesson. 7. Understanding Damages: so in the blast. Lessons of Dr Boat negligence and biscuit elements off decadence, all of them except damages. In this lesson, you're going to look at damages. Theo Purpose off civil law is to compensate the plaintiff for whatever it is the injury that has occurred to them now in negatives. Well, it's the same thing. Remember, it's part off thoughts and thoughts of civil wrongs. So the idea is to compensate the plaintiff and not necessarily to punish the defendant. So one of the ways that the plaintiff is going to be compensated is through damages. Damages are simply monetary compensations that are intended for that purpose, and they can be classified into free. That is punitive, compensatory and nominal damages nominal damages there. Damages that are awarded to plaintiff was not suffered Any physical injury. That's their swing. Someone and you lose the case and the judge says, in addition to whatever it is that they're supposed to pay, you're also going to pay for the other person's lawyers fees. So in this case, that is just that is, there is nominal damage. The problem with this kind of damage is that it does not really come as a result off injured, which is something that is key in negligence, because he's saying there has to be a duty of care, breach of duty, of care, concession and injury with plenty French. So there is no injury. Then that means nominal damages cannot be part off negligence, sort of product liability based on negligence. So we are not going to sue. For those the second kind of damage, it is compensatory damage. In fact, the entire based off product liability is just business. That this is the monetary compensation sort by the injured party to restore their losses over the essence off product liability lawsuits is to compensate. So there are two kinds of capacitor damages. The 1st 1 is the special damage that this kind of damages are going to be specific to the plaintiff or get to the plaintiff's case and short, for example, medical rather than build a medical bills. Or maybe the lost off wedges. I mean, sort of going to be tied down for the plaintiff suffered as a result off the whatever happened with the product that the the books, the 2nd 1 just general damages the second type of compensated damages. There is our general damages, the damages that are intended to compensate the plaintiff or aspects that are non financial , for instance, depending cut. Now, Obviously, this kind of damage is going to vary from one case to the but the entire those two apart off compensatory damages. The last kind of damages are punitive damages. Now, this answer is simple, intended to punish the defendant. And there's a problem with this kind of damage. Is, in fact, most Cholestin to have a debate with regard to another important in negligence or not. See. The thing is, if we, for example, if the judge says that in addition to the complicity diamond you also going to pay their apostle, maybe 60 million shall we were and say there the injury was worth five million. Then you realize the 60 million things just to punish the defendant, the problems that sometimes this can make the defendant bankrupt and at that point you sort of wonder if they're bankrupt, are they going to be there? Well, the plaintiff realized at that point the entire punitive damage things just a waste of time . Well, still is a damage. Just saying that most Cholestin to disagree with regard to their importance. So that kind off, whether the three kinds of damages that you can get when you're talking about compensation the 1st 1 but the punitive nominal and compensatory so up to their help you understand all the elements off negligence. If there is any question, let me know. Remember the elements who are part of what really defines negligence. If one of them is missing, then the kiss in the product liability case based on negligence will fall A. But I'll see you in the next lesson. 8. Applying negligence theory in production: Hi. So in this section, I mean this the last lesson in the session. But what happened? We introduced productive ability. We took a boat, the nickel just theory in productive ability. Now, to conclude this section, just want to point out that all those are theories. So question might be how exactly is going to fit in my business? And so in this lesson again took a boat kind of situations where you can apply whether you can apply the negligence theory or the kind of things that you can do when you're producing or making a product. Avoid lawsuits. They're going to be best on avoid productive leverage lawsuits. They're going to be based on for new projects. Definitely areas in your production that don't pay attention to the 1st 1 is design the second on these manufacturing and the fact Joanie's warning consumers okay, because you're going to fail to give them money. So that's that design. The problem with designing is that, first of all, there really isn't a very straight forward definition off a defective design and yet designed for the defective design is the heart of product liability. When producing a design for your products. You know a lot of things that are going on in your mind. That is the whole idea. Off raw materials. There is the manufacturer, and you know all this stuff. And at some point, you may make a mistake. One of those things that mistake could end up resulting into a defective product in the long run. So you have to be careful at this point because negligence can start from there. When analyzing this issue the issue of defective design, the court will have to look at the following whether a reasonable alternative design would at reasonable cost have reduced the foreseeable risk off home paused by the product and if so, whether the omission off the alternative design rendered the product not safe. Remember, the court at this point is just concerned with the safety off your product. And so that safety could be the result of something. You fail to see what you saw but sort off ignored of the designing stage off your So let's move on to the second thing, ***, gentleman function. So after the design you put up, you know, whatever your product ing too. Production stitch of them unfortunate extends At this point, we still all a duty of care. You still have to be careful. Remember, you can still end up producing something that is defective. So this is a reason why at this point, you need things like calling to control quality assurance systems. All that stuff. You simply avoid the risk that can, aka should do not get a poor standards off care at this point. So once you produce your product, is that the end of each? Because once a producer, productive still have one more thing to do. And that is to on your consumers in short, negligent failure. Toe one. So you still have to wonder consumers your buyers as to the potential of the beautiful. So the potential injuries that may result when using products drug design is based on two things. The duty to warn the user against hidden dangers. And second on the duty to instruct users on how to use the product and avoid dangerous. The basic assumption years that U. S a manufacturer are more skilled, more knowledgeable with the product as opposed to the bike, such a duty to warn them against those two things that you just mentioned. Loving you understand is is blessing on winning on your product. Just saying, Okay, danger. Don't touch with we're times or something like that. They're going to relieve you of your duty. Warning is not a Band Aid to cover Gapping wound on a product is not safe simply because it carries a warning. You'll still need to do all those things that have just mentioned, as far as you know, the standards off care, our consent. So that marks the end of this lesson that marks the end of this section. Ritalin, Abortion Nucleus in relation to Productive Ability If there is any question, let me know. Um, and I see the next lesson when we talk about something else that could be used when trying to figure out product liability. Do have a lovely day. 9. Defenses part one: So these the last session in this cause and the recession is all about how you can defend yourself. Issued a manufacturer and being suit, remember, is what I'm saying. As a manufacturer, you can try your best to avoid productive ability by being careful when you're designing a product. Be careful in Yemen fortune, your product also being careful when you're selling a product. But carefully, I'm simply saying, by exercising a duty of care, Of course, at times things don't go well. And so you end up being suit. So in that case, you're going to have to learn how to defend yourself. Sit. There are two sides to any lawsuit. There is what the plaintiff is saying and that is what the defendant in this case, the manufacturer or the seller is going to say. A defense is the legal theory presented by the defendant to refuse the claim that the plaintiffs injury what the result off anything that defend that did or failed to do the dimensional indecision is just going to look at some of the defenses that can. There are veiled to you as the defendant. Of course, there number of defenses that you know general differences that have to do with thoughts, but in this case, you're simply interested in four defenses that you can use in your product liability. It's a such kind of defenses include comparative negligent or, for defense assumption, off risk defense state off the defense on statute, off limitation. So first of all, they're going to start with the faster comparative negligence or comparative fold difference. It's not always going to be automatic that manufacture is going to be lab or forever thing that happened in the being suit. Nobody got has to be fair to both parties. And the one thing you understand is that the manufacturer is supporting the economy. And so it's not always the case that we have to be harsh on. These people that is all the same are saying that they can get away with whatever teas that we do. But think about it. Sometimes the fault could have a cut, okay, and therefore is not entirely off the manufacture. So but we do so the court will do at this point it straight to compare. That is another comparative things coming about. Tried to compare the aspect of negligence and see to what extent towards them in future, negligent or in this case is for the product liability is concerned. And just extent, was it the plaintiffs fault or Nichols? So if he turns out of the plenty for Justice lab as the manufacturer, then that sort off sheds a new light into the case. And if it turns out that the plentiful actually more liable okay, as a result of their doing, the injury was the result off what did actually Then the manufacturer walks free. Okay, In fact, the point is just trying to figure out a way in which you can see you was the plaintiff, that nothing was your fault. And we has the defendants of the manufacturer. It wasn't our fault. So that can be a defense. If the manufacturer can prove that the entire thing was actually as a result of the Aventis fault for the buyers fault. So the comparative, the analyses are the comparative nuclear testing that is the resorted solar boat. So what? These differences are going to work in strict liability simply because the plaintiff is not in a position to figure out the defect and then protect himself. I mean, it's it's more likely twerking negligence done as the name suggests than in strict liability. So that's the first defense, comparative negligence or comparative fault. The point being you try to prove that the fault waas on the plaintiff's side and not on your side if you are the the defendant. So you have a lovely day. And if you have any question, of course, let me know. 10. Defenses part two: In the last video, we introduced comparative comparative negligence or comparative fault as a defense. This we're going to look at whatever's left now the first thing you're going to start with , the assumption off risk. So another phrases that you, Mitch, you continue studying lower. Basically, if you're interested in lawyer is Valentin and Feet Jury, which simply translates to voluntary assumption off risk there times when the risk or activities that the plaintiff is complaining about is something that came about as a result of their own. Well, their own acceptance. I mean, they accepted the risk in which they're now complaining a boat. It's like they knew the product was dangerous and the decided to use it nonetheless. So that can be a defense that defend that can defend and can use because, you know, for you to use this difference there two things that you have to prove the first on being the plaintiff knew the risk. On the 2nd 1 The plaintiff was willing to accept the risk. Those two things have to be there. Okay, You can't say that somebody is, you know, voluntarily accepted the risk that they are not aware. If you can't accept what you're not aware. And then again, being away of something doesn't necessarily mean that you've accepted it. So in this case, we're talking about assumption off the risk. Simply say they knew the risk and they took to some extent, this simply means the plaintiff is going to leave the defendant off any lab village in relation to whatever happens to death the plaintiff when they use that particular product. So it Zangana kind. Some of those cases we give a valid warning and then the still the entire didn't used it nonetheless. So that is there is a defense. The defense that the defendant can use is state off. The arch defense of the idea is simply to say that the court is going to try and find out if given the advances in technology and science, the manufacturing did do everything that they can do to make the product safe. It's like when you're manufacturing medicine and are you using the standards that the 21st century kind of standards or are you still using the 19th century standards? I mean, that is 19 centuries far well, to this point, the court is going to look at two things. The cost of making this productive, reasonably safe voice is the potential help that, uh, you know, could before the public if we don't use these so called standards get room. But the point is not, you know where I'm saying that will be forced to use the latest cut technology because that can render their manufacturer bankrupt. Just saying how reasonable did have bean okay in terms off cost for you to adopt the current standards. So if you can prove further in this case, if we can prove that yeah, we did that. We used the standards that you are reasonable, the state off, the art kind of our standards. Then we'll that becomes a defense that the last time, which is not really a defense per se. It's the statute of limitations. This simply means as a plaintiff, you have a time like to go and fight the lawsuit. Of course, if you delay. But if you don't file this lawsuit within the given time line, then you can't. So the Templin depended varies from one state to their like, in some cases, the limitation of statutes and taught. It's probably two years So if you never sued for two years and then after that you can't suit the lady of being the fastest with the better. Because at this point, the memories still fresh evidence as has it been tampered with class? I mean, if you take a longer time than it probably means that the thing was not that important. I mean, there are many reasons why the stitches off limitation to exist. So remember the defendant. You have a number off defenses. I mean, you could use the comparative negligent could use this instead of the art defense. The defense you could use The one of the plaintiffs accepted voluntary assumption off the risk or hopefuls digit off limitation. Something there That sort of concludes our lesson for our course on product liability. If you made it, if this far just under say congratulations and, as always, is not the end. So if you have any question, you know what to do. You can email me you confessed book. You can tweet. You can follow me a new T. But if it is not just regarding this course, but regarding anything you know, in business, finance and legal aspect, that you are studying and you think it could be in a position to to answer that? So also, don't forget to give this course already and review. I really appreciate that Gove a lovely day and also producing more courses. So keep on checking. And, um, it was fun. So have a lovely day.