Mrs. Thomas’s case analysis
In Mrs. Thomas’s case, the claim against the manufacturer of the suit is based on the principle of defective products, which can be harmful to customers. There is no doubt that the rash and subsequent infections she suffered could have been caused by the suit, having conducted dermatological testing to reveal a formaldehyde residue. The question is whether, as a Magistrate, I can use any binding or persuasive precedents to hold the manufacturer of the tweed suit liable. A binding precedent is an earlier action or even regarded as a guide or example to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances (Bolitho). In Mrs. Thomas’s case, the task is to find a binding precedent that would allow the magistrate to decide in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant.
As a Magistrate, I can use binding precedents to hold the manufacturer of the tweed suit liable. The claim brought before the court is based on a manufacturing defect. A manufacturing defect takes place when something goes wrong with the production of a unit of goods. The presence of the chemical, formaldehyde residue, could be considered a manufacturing defect. The lawsuit brought by Mrs. Thomas is that of the defective product, which arises when a customer has been injured following a manufacturing defect. It has been established through precedents that when a person suffers injuries or damages because of a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is legally held liable.
The case of Jodie Bullock v. Philip Morris USA Inc. provides a perfect precedent for awarding Mrs. Thomas the requested damages based on the injuries suffered due to the chemical found in the suit, which caused the skin rashes and associated infections. In the case, the woman developed lung cancer and claimed that it emerged from her smoking. The judges both at the trial and appellate courts determined that tobacco use resulted in the customer getting lung cancer, which caused her severe sickness (“Findlaw’s California Court of Appeal Case and Opinions.”). The cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris, did not warn the customers of the possibility that smoking cigarettes would be associated with lung cancer. Similarly, Mrs. Thomas did not get a warning from the manufacturer of the suit that the product contained some form of chemical in the fabric, which could lead to skin rashes or infections thereof.
The other precedent was set by the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. It was argued during this case that McDonald’s coffee was defective because it was scorching, and therefore caused severe injury to the plaintiff. The courts determined, using the principles of comparative negligence that the company was responsible for the incident.
The facts established in these two cases is that in the case where a product has a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is held liable for any injury or damages suffered by the customer. In the case of Philip Morris, the defect in the cigarettes is that it possesses a chemical that can easily cause liver cancer. The company failed to warn the customers of the possibility of this link. Hence, it was held liable for both manufacturing defects and negligence concerning warning its customers against the defect in the product. In McDonald’s, the defect in the product can be described as scalding coffee, which is above the expected temperatures, and hence constitutes a product liability (“Liebeck V. Mcdonald’s | The American Museum of Tort Law”). The same can be used in Mrs. Thomas’s case that the suit was defective, and the manufacturer was negligent in warning its customers of any possible side effects.
Problem 2: Maritime Safety Act of 2019 Hypothetical Case
In interpreting the provision of an Act, as provided by the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act of 1901, the interpretation that would best achieve the act’s purpose should be preferred (“Acts Interpretation Act 1901”). In the case of the Maritime Safety Act of 2019, it is provided that any person who deliberately interferes with any maritime sign or symbol or any part of a maritime sign or symbol shall be guilty of an offense. Interpreted, this section of the act implies that any individual who interferes with any part of the signs and symbols (regardless of whether they are only placed at the top of the markers) would be held liable for committing a crime. While Tony realizes that the markers are careful, primarily for navigation in the sea, interfering with them constitutes a crime as established in the act.
As the Solicitor for Tony, I would advise him to settle with the authorities before the matter heads up for trial because he would end up fined more money or would spend two years in jail. By only fitting the wire creations to the top of the navigation markers, Tony violated the Maritime Safety Act 2019’s provision on endangering public safety. The law provides that any form of interference of the symbols- any part of it, bottom or top, is deemed guilty of an offense. There is no doubt that by placing his markers on the navigation markers, Tony is interfering with the maritime signs. Therefore, he would be convicted by a judge or jury for endangering public safety. The other important aspect of the provision worth noting is “deliberate interference of the maritime symbols.” Tony’s actions are deliberate. After all, he fits the markers intentionally because he wants to impress his mates. Therefore, he would be found guilty of violating the act, and as such, settling for $28 would be the best advice given the circumstances.