Management Liability Scenario

Management Liability Scenario

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Name and Code

Professor’s Name

Date

Management Liability Scenario

Lori V. Mowers Inc.

A contract is a legal agreement involving two or more private parties that creates statutory requirements for both parties. For a contract to be considered valid it has to meet four specific requirements. These requirements include offer, acceptance, consideration and legality (Davis, 1). It is very obvious that Brian and his two employees are in a valid contract. This is because all the elements of a valid contract are evident. Brian’s company, Mowers Inc., offered to employ the two employees. The employees accepted the offer by agreeing to work for the company. Both the employees and Brian gave a consideration; the employees gave their time and energy while Brian was going to pay the employees for their time and energy. The employees agreed to be legally bound since they signed a waiver of liability contract.

Liability waivers, commonly referred to as release forms, hold harmless agreements, or waivers of liability, are contractual agreements. A stakeholder, such as a client or staff, recognizes risk and consents to release the business from liability for injuries or other losses resulting from inherent risks (Adams, 2). If a staff or client experiences losses or injuries, the limitation of liability protects the firm from having to pay legal penalties. The main benefit of using a liability waiver is that firms can defend themselves against injuries suffered and legal actions connected to operations that are by their very nature dangerous. This degree of defense can protect your image of the business, profits, and avert needless legal battles. A liability waiver has 6 essential parts.

The first part is that there should be an inherent risk which has the possibility of causing harm or damage. In this case the employees of Mowers Inc. were working with mowers to cut grass for their clients (Adams, 2). There was a possibility of the employees getting injured while using the machines. Secondly is the assumption of risk which clearly stipulates that the staff understood the possibility of risk in the work involved. Thirdly there was a release clause which released the company of any legal obligation in the event an employee got injured at work. The fourth part is the indemnification where the employees agree to pay for any legal costs that may result in them filing a law suit against the company in the event of injury at work (Adams, 2). The fifth part is the insurance which states that the company should not cover any damages that may occur at work. The sixth part is the choice of law which caters for the different locations of both the employer and the company to avoid confusion when it comes to law and regulations.

The employees were both trained and there after signed the waiver of liability contract showing that they fully agreed with it. It is therefore evident that the liability waiver contract was valid since Lori was not forced to sign it. As per the contract she was not legible for any compensation for the injury she obtained while mowing. She could also not take the company to court unless she was willing to cater for all the costs incurred by the lawsuit which was very unlikely. As much as Brian had told the employees not to worry and that the company would protect them, it was not reliable since he did not put it in writing. Every valid contract should be in written format (Davis, 1). If it could have been written down it could have overruled the liability waiver.

As much as Lori signed the liability to waiver, she has claim to worker’s compensation as per the law of tort. The law of tort clearly states that a damage or injury should be compensated with no regards if the action that caused the damage or injury was intentional or accidental (White, 3). Lori had been trained on how to use the mower so the employer, Brain did not intend for her to trip in the moist grass and end up being injured. Work compensation laws protect individuals who become injured or disabled in the line of work (Bakhauser et al., 4). In this case, Lori lost a toe and therefore she was clearly injured. Since she cannot sue Mowers Inc., the might as well cater for her hospital bills and give her paid leave as she recovers from home.

Peta V. Ferrari

When a manufacturer or seller is held accountable for putting a faulty item in the possession of a customer, this is referred to as product liability. All retailers of the goods who are involved in the distribution chain are accountable for any product flaw that results in harm. In general, the law demands that an item live up to typical consumer aspirations (Del Riego, 5). An item cannot be claimed to satisfy the typical expectations of the consumer if it has an unforeseen flaw or risk.  Design defect is when there was a risk that could have been foreseen when the item was made as intended and used for its intended uses. The corporation is liable for the design flaw (Del Riego, 5). Manufacturing defects are those that take place when the product was being made or during its assembly and the manufacturer had no intentions for the product have them. Marketing defects occur in the way the product is marketed. For example, it is not well labeled, the instructions are not clear or the safety precautions are not listed.

In this case, Peta did not have a product liability case against Ferrari because the mower was in perfect condition. Ferrari had made it a requirement to replace the sandpaper liner on the mower for traction every three years due to normal wear and tear. Mowers Inc. had done exactly that. The mower was also in perfect condition since it had been used for three years without any flaws whatsoever. The manufacturer clearly had no intentions of using the product to ruin Peta’s roses. The whole incident was an accident which was not planned for. Peta should just accept the loss since she will no longer be participating in the competition. It was not even evident that if she participated in the rose competition she would have won the prize of $10,000. The fact that she was not physically injured was enough.

Sources

Davis, Kevin and Pargendler, Mariana. 2022. Contract Law and Inequality. P 485-541. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=157206054&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Adams, Rusty. 2019. Are Liability Waivers Enforcable? P 11-13.Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=139491791&site=eds-live&scope=site.

White, Edward. 2003. Tort Law in America. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=129730&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Burkhauser, Richard et al. 2012. The Importance of Anti-Discrimination and Workers’ Compensation Laws on the Provision of Workplace Accommodations Following the Onset of a Disability. P 161-180. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391206500109.

Del Riego, Alissa. 2021. Deconstructing Fallacies in Products Liability Law to Provide a Remedy for Economic Loss. P 387-447. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12185.