Fact Summary: Barker was a mechanic who repaired cars and similar vehicles from
ID: 459700 • Letter: F
Question
Fact Summary: Barker was a mechanic who repaired cars and similar vehicles from 1967 to 1995. His work required use of heavy machinery to grind, sand and cut compenents like brake pads and brake shoes. These components contained asbestos, which is proven to cause disease in those who inhale the dust produced by grinding and cutting of these components. The machines Barker used were manufactured by a predecessor of Hennessy Industries. Barker died in 2008 from asbestos related illness. His wife sued Hennesy under strict liability arguing they were liable because they were aware their machinery was used in conjunction with asbestos-containing products but failed to warn users of the dangers. Hennessy argued they could not be liable for injuries caused by another manufacturer's product even if it was foreseeable that its machines would be used to repair products that contained asbestos. The trial court dismissed the suit because Hennessy showed that its machines were stand-alone products that did not contain asbestos or require asbestos to operate.
Synopsis of decisions and opinion: The California Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision in favor of Hennessy. The court held that a product manufacturer is liable in struct liability or neglect for harm caused by another manufacturer's product only when its own product contributes to the harm. Because Hennessy's product was not itself defective, Hennessy could not be held liable even when its product was used in conjunction with an independent defective product. Furthermore, strict liability does not require that a manufacturer foresee harm that may occur should its own safe product be used with another's unsafe or defective product.
1) Identify and analyze the relevant legal, social, business, ethical and biblical issues involved.
2) What would have to be proved for a defense of assumption of risk to be effective had this gone to trial
Explanation / Answer
As per the legal terms Hennessy cannot be held liable for the harm caused. This is because of the fact the the product of Hennessy does necessarily to be used to cut asbestos and furthermore the product is Hennessy is not defective in the first place to be considered for liability. As per the legal laws prevailing in the city, what the court has done is correct. Baker's wife does not have any kind of a legal hold in this matter.
But when considered in the social and the ethical and the biblical angle, Baker has worked for the organization for such a long time, the organization must have compensated his wife with some monetary benefits. Baker has taken the life harming working environment to provide profits for the organization. Some financial help would have been a great gesture to Baker's wife.
Considering the Business angle, there is nothing wrong in the Hennessy's position. Any business is carried out for profit. One part that Hennessy could have done is that, the organization very well knows that Baker is working in the hazardous situation, in order to earn profits for the organization. They could have provided some kind of safety equipment to Baker and could have ensured that, Baker is always wearing that safety equipment when he is working in that kind of situation.
For Mrs Baker's defense nothing could be done. It has to be proved that death is caused due to the faulty functioning of the equipment. But this is not the case here. Death is due to the asbestos material that Mr. Baker has inhaled, which he could have avoided.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.