Question

BUSINESS LAW:

Please identify all potential issues in this fact pattern and analyze whether there are successful causes of action by the various parties. Use the IRAC method described above.

Andrew owns a car manufactured by Zord Manufacturing company.  

Andrew takes the car to Bob’s repair shop and directs Bob to change the oil and align the steering. While doing the repairs, bob notices an important steel pin the brakes of the car is nearly worn through and could fail at any time. The pin appears to be made of an inappropriate metal. Bob says nothing to Andrew about noticing the Pin because he wasn’t working on it.

Several days later, Andrew was driving at a high rate of speed on the highway in excess of the speed limit.   About 100 feet ahead of him, standing on the side of the road is peter. Peter is staring at his cell phone and is about to walk into traffic. However, at this moment, Andrew is daydreaming and not watching the road. If he had been watching the road, he would have had time to stop.   Two seconds later, Andrew looks up and sees peter in the road in front of him.    He slams on his brakes with great force, the defective pin breaks and the brakes fail to work after a moment. Peter looks up and it is too late to jump out of the way and peter is struck by the car, and is seriously injured.  

Evaluate what claims Peter might have against Andrew, and any claims that might exist between Andrew, Bob, and Zord Auto. Please use the IRAC format discussed.

Answer 1

Here for better understanding we need to put the data in IRAC format.

Issue

(1) Zord company has manufactured a critical component using an inferior metal.

(2) Bob was not bothered to inform about it to Andrew.

(3) Andrew was negligently driving and exceeded the legal speed limit on the highway.

(4) Peter was not paying attention to the road.

Rule

(1) Zord company must have manufactured critical components with sufficient quality.

(2) Even though bob was not working on it he could have informed about it to Andrew since a mechanic knows very well how dangerous it is to drive around with a broken component in the braking system.

(3) Andrew broke several rules in here. He must have concentrated on his driving.

(4) Being patient to ensure the safe distance from ongoing traffic was necessary but Peter just did the opposite.

Application

(1) Andrew can try to take legal actions against the Zord company for manufacturing defects in their product. Zord could blame back Andrew for his rash driving and for not servicing the wearable parts regularly.

(2) Nothing can be done against Bob because it is almost impossible to prove his fault, and he has no legal obligation in it.

(3) Peter’s advocate can file a case against Andrew for negligent driving because it was completely avoidable if Andrew could have been driving under the speed limits.

(4) In court for his self-defense Andrew can also blame Peter for his lack of concentration while crossing the road.

Conclusion

Zord company and Andrew both the parties have legal implications here. But Zord could get away with it since Andrew violated the law evidently and happen to be involved in a serious accident, which is easily provable in court. Zord company has a lot of loopholes available to avoid being responsible unless Andrew could take the help of Bob for finding the same brake component fault in other batches of the same model or any other model manufactured by Zord.