The Estate of Simpson 1.edited

docx

School

Nairobi Institute of Technology - Westlands *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

HUMAN RESO

Subject

Business

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by dannetke

Report
The Estate of Simpson v. GM, LLC, 2020 Mich . App. LEXIS 12 emanated from a product liability case tabled before the Michigan Court of Appeals. The complainant, Simpson, got injured in an accident because of a faulty product manufactured by the perpetrator, GM, LCC. The could be stated that GM was exactingly accountable for the injuries that Simpson encountered. Furthermore, it declared the decision of the lower court to credit the damages. The court established that GM had a responsibility to make sure that their products were safe for utilization by the customers. Thus, GM had failed to warn Simpson about the possible risks of the faulty switch (Lexis,1). Facts of the case Within the Estate of Simpson v, GM, LLC, 2020 Mich.APP.Lexis 12, the facts stand out that the complainant, Trask Simpson, got injured in an accident that was propagated by a defective product that was made by GM, LLC, who is the defendant. The other fact of the case is that the took place when Trask Simpson was driving a GM pickup truck manufactured with a faulty ignition switch. Thus, the GM pickup truck unexpectedly deviated across the road into the opposite lane. As a result, the truck caused an accident and severe injuries to Trask Simpson. Arguments The Respondent: The defendant argued that the accident occurred due to Trask Simpson's carelessness and not to the faulty switch fitted in the truck. Furthermore, the perpetrator argued that the accident was not probable and that GM was unaware of the potential risks of the defective switch. The complainant:
The plaintiff argued that the faulty switch in the GM pickup truck triggered the accident. Therefore, GM should have cautioned Trask Simpson regarding the possible risks of the faulty switch. History of Proceedings At first, the case was presented before the Michigan state court, which decided in favor of Trask Simpson, and damages were thus awarded to him. After that, GM filed an appeal regarding the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In return, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the findings of the lower court and held GM fully accountable for the injuries that Trask Simpson suffered. Law Regarding Product Liability Defect Product liability works on the basis of the idea that manufacturers have the responsibility to make sure that their products observe safety for their utilization by the customers. The Michigan law regards that the complainant can file a claim against a manufacturer for damages instigated by a faulty product. For the comp[lainant to succeed in a product liability claim, he or she must substantiate that the product was faulty and that the fault triggered the injuries suffered. Holding of the Court and Reasoning for Court's Decision The Michigan Court of Appeals holding was that GM was strictly accountable for the injuries that Trask Simpson suffered. The court held that the accident was triggered by the faulty ignition switch that was fitted in the GM pickup truck. The court also held that the GM was supposed to have cautioned Trask Simpson regarding the possible risks associated with the faulty switch (Jennings, 3). The court concluded that GM was strictly responsible for Simpson's
injuries. Moreover, the court asserted the decision by the Michigan state court that GM award damages to Trask Simpson. Reference Michigan Court of Appeals. (2020). Estate of Trask Simpson v. GM, LLC, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 12. Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals- unpublished/2020/338552.html Estate of Simpson v. GM, LLC, 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 12, 2020 WL 39978 (Court of Appeals of Michigan January 2, 2020, Decided). https://advancelexiscom.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document? collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5XWSMT21-F900-G394-00000-00&context=1516831. 2. Marianne Jennings. 2022. Business: It's Legal, Ethical and Global Environment, Twelfth Edition. p. 484-487. Cengage Learning.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help