Essay on Product Liability and Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction

Generally, there are a number of intellectual property and product liability cases in the news but the main objective of this paper is to discuss a case about product liability. The title of the story I located from the news reads as follows "Strict liability claims dismissed, negligence claims remain in case of water contamination by firefighting foam" (Miriam, 2018). The main legal issue involved in this story is the way in which firefighting foam has caused problems by contaminating the public water through the supplied toxins.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

As a result, a number of residents were harmed. For instance, it was tragic for one of the residents to be diagnosed with bladder cancer which left him in pain, suffering, and loss of earnings and impairment of earning. This incident was considerably sad since it affected his loved ones especially the wife who lost consortium and companionship of her husband. The victim claimed that it was caused by his exposure to poisonous substances which were found in the public water hence suing the Tyco Fire Products LP. According to the victim, the company did not show even the slightest amount of care while handling the chemicals hence indicating how reckless they were with regard to the safety of others.

The case was taken to a federal district court in Pennsylvania which pleaded the causes of the action as a design defect and negligent failure to warn them. Nevertheless, the pleaded causes of action for failure to provide strict medical monitoring or design defect and warning the residents was not done in a sufficient manner (Miriam, 2018). Despite the fact that it was an important measure to take, the property-related damages were not pleaded sufficiently as well. For that reason, the court decided to grant and deny in part the motions to dismiss prepared by the producers of the foam used in firefighting. Consequently, the inhabitants were granted leave to amend their property-related damages and medical monitoring claims.

During the case argument, the relevant factors were balanced. For instance, in the duty existence, the court concluded that the inhabitants had pleaded the facts indicating that the foam manufacturers owed a duty to them in a more adequate manner. On the other hand, the two parties did not have any apparent relationship, and the foam used in firefighting had a massive social service. Nevertheless, the manufacturing company should have chosen substances that were less harmful to equalize the effectiveness of firefighting foam (Miriam, 2018). Another instance was the damages of the related property where the court found that the inhabitants did not assert that the contaminated public water supply had affected their property. According to the law, the residents should have stated a claim for their property but they failed.

Moreover, the situation about the loss of consortium claimed by the victim's wife was not considered as an original claim since such claims does not arise from a purely economic damage hence the claim was not disclosed. In fact, the doctrine could not bar the claim as the complaint was timely because the victim had been diagnosed with bladder cancer two years before suing the foam manufacturing company. Additionally, the court determined that the residents' allegations on the medical monitoring claim were not stated sufficiently hence it was dismissed.

Conclusion

According to my exploration, I think some of the decisions made by the court were reasonable especially the loss of consortium claim and existence of a duty. On the other hand, I think medical monitoring claim should have been disclosed despite the fact that the allegations stated by the residents were not sufficient. I believe that the health and safety of the society is very important. Therefore, the court could at least have enabled the residents to state medical monitoring claim and also claim for a strict products liability for the sake of their safety.

References

Miriam, J. (2018, May 22). Strict liability claims dismissed, negligence claims remain in case of water contamination by fire-fighting foam. Wolters Kluwer. Retrieved from http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/products-liability/news/PLD20180522