The Law of Torts, Product and Service Liability Law Assignment

The Law of Torts, Product and Service Liability Law - Assignment Example Against this background, this essay seeks to critically analyse the cases of Haimes v Temple University Hospital [1981] and the Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1998]. Based on the law of torts and product and service liability laws, the essay seeks to compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits. The paper will also evaluate aspects related to the facts, issues, judgment, as well as ethical issue related to the two cases. A summary of the main points discussed will be given at the end of the essay. In the case of Haimes v. Temple University Hospital [1981] it can be noted that much of the plaintiff's testimony concerned her psychic activities and her inability to practice these activities following the CT scan. To read an aura, according to plaintiff, it is necessary to go into an altered state, a state of deep concentration. She complains that her psychic activities have been negatively impacted and she can no longer perform the tasks she used to do. It can be seen that this affected the occupation of the plaintiff and this is the reason why she got a favourable judgement. The jury gave the verdict in the amount of $600Â  000 which included Dr. Haimes loss of a consortium. In view of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, the verdict was molded to include delay damages of $386,465.75 and this brought the total award to $986,465.75. However, the motion for a new trial of the hospital and the doctor was granted given that the verdict was considered as grossly excessive as to shock the court’s sense of justice. In the case of Vandevender v Sheetz, INC [1997], the employee sustained a back injury at work and she was not permitted to return to work by the employer as a result of specific restrictions. She then appealed and punitive damages were awarded as a result of the unlawful termination of her employment. However, the punitive damages were found to be excessive since they did not corroborate with the actual harm as well as term ination of employment suffered by the plaintiff. A closer analysis of the case shows that the appellee was treated badly by the appellant, and that the appellant should have to pay her a fair amount of damages. In this case, the appelle was awarded $ 293,866.00 in compensatory and noneconomic damages for missing essentially four weeks of work as well as other related ill-treatment she received. However, an award of $ 2,232,740 is considered as too much. From the above cases, it can be noted that in order to prove the existence of day care duty, some conditions should prevail where a defendant can be taken to court if this duty is breached. Thus, the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), suggests that the following conditions should prevail in order for the plaintiff to win the case and these include: foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. Terry & Giugni (2009) concurs with this notion when he says that the following elements should be proved by the plaintiff in order to be successful in winning the claim. There is need to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, this duty has been breached by falling below expected standards, the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer physical or economic harm (causation) and the injury suffered was remote or foreseeable. However, it is not always easy to prove that the