Crosswhite Robert Cases study week 11
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Lakes College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2130
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by KidHare2488
“Paragraph 1: Summarize the Case in your own words.”
The plaintiffs were suing JJP after the husband set himself ablaze trying to light a cigarette. They
had used a product from the company JJP and turned it into a costume, deviating from its list of intended uses. The man carelessly misused the product that was meant for bandaging, and everything but using it as a wearable product. Because it is not stated that it is flammable, the jury somehow reasoned that the plaintiffs should be compensated, because the defendant company failed to warn of a potential danger.
“Paragraph 2: Indicate how it relates to the content for the week.”
This week's course content was all about litigations, and ethical conduct in court cases. This case really shows that people will try to get compensation for anything even when they know they are
in the wrong or when it is due to their own carelessness. The plaintiffs still attempted to get money out of the situation that they mishandled and caused harm to themselves. This was all unethical to me, it just was them trying to get something out of their own stupid mistakes and blaming others for their misfortune.
“Paragraph 3: Answer question What, exactly, is the alleged breach of duty by the defendant here?”
The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed in its “duty to warn” in neglecting to warn users that their product was flammable, however they do have a label suggesting what is it meant to be used for, and the plaintiff later admitted they knew that it was flammable but still sued anyway.
“Explain why Judge Gadola reasoning that JJP had no duty to warn in this case. After this case, would they then have a duty to warn, knowing that someone might use their product in this way?
"
Judge Gadola reasoned that JJP had no duty to warn in this case because the label clearly stated what it was expected to be used for, and it is not the company’s fault that a customer used their product for something else. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff stated that they knew the product would burn if exposed to an open flame showed that they clearly knew they were in the wrong. The appeals judge ruled in the circumstances did not constitute “a duty to warn” and issued a “Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” as requested by the defendant. I think that, now
knowing that more people could do the same thing with their products, they would put a warning
to avoid another case like this. I do not think that they have a duty to warn because there should not be a case where you can light this product on fire in the first place.
“Last paragraph: Provide a conclusion that reiterates the significance of the case.”
In the end the case was later overturned because the plaintiffs admitted to the court that they knew it was flammable among other things... The court ruled in the defendant's favor in the end. This case really shows to you that anyone can attempt to sue you for anything no matter how bazar, so be careful, make sure your products clearly state what they are meant to be used for if they are meant as a product that could be put into a flammable situation make sure it clearly is stated in. I am quite shocked that the jury even tried to rule in the plaintiffs favor because everything they were doing was shady.
Cite: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc. 771 F. Supp. 196 (U.S. District Ct., Eastern District of Michigan 1991) Gadola, J.
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