Week 13 Skills Workshop
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
402A
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ChiefBook8121
Sierra Nielsen
December 10, 2023
Summary Annotations & Outline
S
UMMARY
A
NNOTATIONS
T
ORT
S
TORIES
:
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
In the case of Escola v. Coca-Cola, Gladys Escola was refilling the refrigerator where she
worked with bottles of Coca-Cola when one of them exploded in her hand. Her right hand was
severely injured by the bottle's explosion, which also damaged blood vessels and nerves. Mrs.
Escola's hand was so seriously injured that she had to be taken to the hospital and have surgery to
fix it. The results showed that she could no longer use her hand as she used to. She couldn't
return to her regular job schedule because of chronic pain and tenderness in her right hand. Even
though Mrs. Escola received a $42.60 payment for her workers' compensation claim, this was not
enough to cover her salary loss and medical costs. Gladys was able to sue Coca-Cola for
damages under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the jury decided to award her $2,900 in
compensatory damages. The defendant used three witnesses during the legal proceedings, a
professor of civil engineering, a chemical engineer, and the manager of the Coca-Cola Bottling
Works of Fresno. The defendant then tried to demonstrate that the broken bottle was caused by
external factors that happened during delivery or after the defendant lost control of the bottles.
However, Mrs. Escola was found not guilty by the jury because the defense for the
defendant was not enough to win the case. The defendant filed an appeal, claiming that the
court's decision was influenced by Gerber v. Farber, which would overturn the lower court's
ruling. In dissenting opinions, the appellate court agreed. Justice Traynor supported strict
responsibility over res ipsa loquitur in his concurring opinion. He used MacPherson, the
contaminated food cases to demonstrate how legal concepts and precedent may be used to
establish strict liability for defective products. However, it took many years for courts and states
to recognize the standard of strict liability.
SA&O 111520
Priest, The Invention of Enterprise Liability
The concept of enterprise liability has changed since it was first introduced in 1930, and the
Invention of Enterprise Liability article explains "its judicial acceptance as the foundation of our
modern civil liability regime" (Priest). The most important viewpoints on tort responsibility from
1900 to 1950 are explained in the legal basis of enterprise liability, which also addresses the
development of contract law throughout the years. The theory of business liability developed
from a combination of contract law and tort liability. The enterprise liability synthesis developed
between 1960 and 1964, and it was important in the cases of Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors
Inc. and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products Inc. This was the first example of the enterprise
liability being recognized by the courts. Priest also discusses Fleming James, Friedrich Kessler,
William Prosser, and his reform attempts frequently in the article. In an effort to gain the support
of everyone to accept his idea, Fleming James focused his professional work on his theory of risk
distribution and compensation. Friedrich Kessler, on the other hand, was a little more concerned
than James. Based on his experiences in pre-war Germany before he emigrated to the United
States, Kessler noticed an increase in authoritarianism in Western civilization. In addition, due to
his effect on modern contract law, Kessler made a significant contribution to the success of
business liability. However, according to Priest, "enterprise liability for product-related losses
was at best a trivial implication of his approach." The ideas and suggestions that William Prosser
developed took inspiration from people such as Kessler and James. Prosser quickly advanced
contemporary product liability laws that are still in use today.
2
Schwartz, The Beginning and the Possible End of the Rise of Modern American Tort Law
The article titled "The Origins and Potential Decline of Contemporary American Tort Law"
discusses the reasons behind the development of what is now known as Modern American Tort
Law. It explains the importance of public policy activism to the government during the 1960s
and 1970s, as well as the influence and consequences of the Warren Court's judicial activism. It
also discusses the problem of damage caused by products and how public policy came to be
established as a result of this. While George Priest has disagreed with Schwartz's statement that
the development of liability has been based on the concept of negligence, many tort scholars,
including Robert Rabin, Richard Epstein, and Michael Trebilcock agree. Prior readings
suggested that Priest's views were based on the enterprise liability theory. In this paper, Schwartz
supports his argument while challenging Priest's enterprise liability theory. Schwartz additionally
discusses other instances in the past ten years where courts have expanded the criteria for
liability. However, after this period, there was an increase in defense victories, and it was more
common to get a mix of results, which was extremely different from what was seen in the 1960s
and 1970s. Schwartz primarily uses the stabilization of product liability and mild retrenchment
processes as reasons for the judiciary's new approach. According to him, the development of
contemporary tort law as we know it could come to an end due to the significant uncertainty
around liability.
3
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