Question

Business Law Question:

A woman from British Columbia, Saliha Alnoor, recently sued Colgate-Palmolive, alleging that she was injured by a defective toothbrush. She stated that the toothbrush snapped as she was brushing her teeth, which injured her gums and caused them to bleed profusely. Alnoor claimed that she had endured permanent injury and sought damages, including $94 000 in anticipated treatments. Colgate denied any wrongdoing. Soon after the trial began, the judge made several rulings against Alnoor, who was self-represented. Alnoor later agreed to drop her claim in response to Colgate’s offer to waive legal costs against her (estimated at about $30 000) if she did so. According to the National Post, Alnoor’s brother stated as follows: “We spent $21 000 on lawyers and experts, but we have no regrets. Now we know how justice works. Now we are much wiser.”

In two paragraphs answer: Why do you think this matter proceeded to litigation? What are the risks Colgate faced from the litigation? What are Alnoor’s risks? What side do you favour and why?

Answer 1

This matter proceeded to litigation because Saliha Alnoor was injured while using Colgate-Palmolive’s toothbrush and she wanted to recover damages from the company. The objective of the litigation was to determine whether Colgate-Palmolive was guilty or not of selling a defective toothbrush and if guilty what would be the reasonable damages that will be awarded to the plaintiff.

The risks that Colgate faced from the litigation were that the litigation will harm its brand and reputation in the market. Colgate is a leading player in the oral hygiene market across the world and such litigations will surely dilute and harm the company’s strong brand. The risks for Alnoor were the possibility of losing the case and no damages being awarded to her by the court of law. I favor Colgate-Palmolive because in this case it cannot be proved that the toothbrush was either defective or dangerous. Here the concept of strict liability is not applicable and since the plaintiff cannot prove that the product was defective – there was no design defect and no manufacturing defect. Hence there is no negligence or breach of warranty as well on part of Colgate.