Rhetorical Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 3

Rhetorical Analysis - Essay Example In her article backed up by frequent rhetoric, Laura Tyson points out how the assumptions made by pro-profit advocates fail to account for the environmental context and their stakeholders, including customers, society, and shareholders. As such greater social responsibility and concern is beneficial for organizations, if anything, because social well-being correlates to empowered consumers, ethical employees, effective governments, and sound social infrastructure. The article highlights many organizations such as Apple that have made efforts in order to enhance workplace conditions for their global employees in an effort to put their image in a positive light and thus increase sales by maintaining goodwill (Tyson, 2013). Therefore, the article mainly aims to point out that social responsibility is not reducing the competitiveness of organizations but is actually doing the opposite by providing them with a competitive advantage. The article by Laura Tyson (2013) is an argument against profit maximization as opposed to social responsibility. Laura Tyson has therefore adopted rhetorical strategies in order to communicate her point persuasively. These specifically include the usage of ethos and logos frequently as compared to emotional rhetoric characterized by pathos. The argument is geared towards proving the point that profit maximization is not the sole purpose of capitalistic organizations but organizations also have obligations towards their stakeholders, including customers, shareholders, and society. Laura Tyson first highlighted the stance held by Milton Friedman and Robert Simons before proceeding to present an argument against their case. Laura Tyson has regularly backed up her claims by citing empirical studies that support her claims. Hence the usage of rhetorical strategies is evident in Tyson’s argument as she has tried to make a case against profit maximization by organizations. Laura Tyson

The Japanese ceramic Essay Example for Free

The Japanese ceramic Essay The Japanese ceramic bowls in LACMA’s permanent collection show a clear difference between the pre-1650 stoneware pieces and the slightly later porcelain items. While the stoneware works are more abstract and coarser-looking, generally giving the appearance of folk objects, the porcelain bowls have a delicate, refined appearance indicating their manufacture for the social elites and suggesting their more decorative uses. The oldest bowl, dubbed â€Å"Dish with the Character for ‘Spirit’,† dates from circa 1580 and is a stoneware piece in earth tones, with beige, brown, and white glaze with black calligraphy a design vaguely reminiscent of sun rays. The different sections are drawn somewhat unevenly, attesting to somewhat rough craftsmanship and suggesting that this piece was made for common people. A similar piece, dating from 1578, has a somewhat squared-off rim with blossoms and stripes radiating from the center. Its glaze is also earth-toned and it features a somewhat cryptic design in the center, and the somewhat uneven hand-applied application suggests non-elite workmanship and usage. Another, slightly later stoneware piece (from the early seventeenth century) is a wide, shallow bowl, also with an uneven mouth and abstract design inside. The porcelain pieces, by contrast, reveal much greater detail and refinement. The oldest, named â€Å"Dish with Paulownia Snowflake Design† and dating from the late seventeenth century, is rounder and more symmetrical than the stoneware dishes, and features two multicolored, elaborate snowflake designs (a smaller one in blue and a larger red, green, and blue one that extends off the surface of the vessel). Another contemporary dish has a painting of intricately-decorated blue and white jars against a grayish background; it is similarly symmetrical in shape. The final one, dating from 1830-43, is perhaps the most detailed, showing a map of several islands (one of which dominates the picture) within a sea, whose waves are stylized semi-circles. All feature such close, intricate detail that while they are intended as useful objects, they appear as much decorative as practical and they seem to have been created with more artistic attention (and possibly with more sophisticated manufacturing techniques). The stoneware bowls appear to be functional vernacular objects, given their somewhat rough-hewn appearance. Compared to the porcelain bowls, which appear more decorative and intricately designed, the older pieces appear more practical because of their roughness; one would not be as likely to damage the stoneware bowls or spoil their appearances with stains (which earth-tone glaze would help conceal). The porcelain dishes appear more decorative and, perhaps, less likely to be used for everyday consumption. The stoneware bowls evoke no deep feeling because they are not holy objects and do not include evocative depictions of anything. Instead, they serve as examples of what ordinary Japanese used for routine food consumption. The porcelain items were likely elite objects, since Japan’s ruling classes tended to prefer porcelain, which, according to the museum website, was generally not sold commercially. The stoneware dishes were likely made for and owned by commoners, given their less refined craftsmanship and use of heavy clay rather than delicate porcelain. The latter ones show more of an artist’s hand. The works relate to each other by illustrating what kinds of bowls Japan’s different classes used. The porcelain bowl is an example of elite tastes, while cruder-looking ceramic bowls were more readily available to the population, illustrating the gaps in aesthetic value between objects meant for commoners (who put their through more practical use) and those meant for elites (who could afford to own them for decorative reasons alone). â€Å"LACMA Collections Online. † LACMA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 2006. http://collectionsonline. lacma. org/mwebcgi/mweb. exe? request=jump;dtype=i;startat=13.

Stakeholder Analysis Is Important For Toyota Marketing Essay

Stakeholder Analysis Is Important For Toyota Marketing Essay 2.0 INTRODUCTION Business organisations have to take their stakeholders into account in order to succeed in attaining its business goals. The participations and supports from stakeholders are essential to ensure that business operations run smoothly. Stakeholder is any person, group or organisation that will be affected by the business activities and have something to earn or lose with the changes of business operations. Stakeholders include customers, suppliers, distributors, public, community, media, government, etc. 2.1 NEW STRATEGIES FOR TOYOTA According to the case study, Toyota was forced to recall its cars from the US market last year due to faulty brakes. This has affected Toyotas image in the minds of stakeholders. In order to change stakeholders attitude towards Toyota, it has plan on implementing an effective advertising campaign as its new strategy. 2.1.2 ADVERTISING According to wordnetweb.princeton.edu, advertising is defined as a public promotion of some product or service. In other words, advertising is an activity of presenting a product or service to induce people to purchase of it. Advertising is one of marketing tool that is used to sell and promote the products or services of business organisations. Toyota can use advertising campaign to persuade potential customers to purchase the cars produced by its company. Advertising agency can be hired to over view their new product and advertise it to attract the customers. The roles and function of advertising in the communication industry include firstly, to acquire enhanced volumes of sales of products and services. For example, advertising can help Toyota to increase the sales volume of their product by giving pamphlets and brochures to the customers, media advertisement and etc. Secondly, advertising can generate awareness about offerings. For instance, the advertisement in billboards, flyers and media advertisement on Toyota is to attract customers attention and inform customers on the latest promotion. For instance, to introduce a new car model produced by the company. Thirdly, advertising induce trial of a new product and services offered. For example, Toyota Aygo is targeted to the younger generation. Therefore, through its advertisement, it can attract the attention of the youth to purchase and use the car. Fourthly, advertising can also change perception and create reassurance. For example, a good advertisement will make customers feel that t he cars produced by Toyota provides better quality and value compared to the cars which are produced by other companies. Besides that, advertising can also support sales promotional sponsorships and public relations activity, make announcements in public interest, and also motivate and impress trade channels. Advertising is a paid, non personal promotion of a product or service by an advertising agency to inform or persuade a particular target audience. Advertising has evolved to take a variety of forms and has permeated nearly every aspect of modern society. Advertising can take a number of forms, including advocacy, comparative, cooperative, and direct-mail, informational, institutional, outdoor, persuasive, product, reminder, point-of-purchase, and specialty advertising. For instance, Toyota can use the various delivery mechanisms for advertising include banners at sporting events, billboards, Internet Web sites, logos on clothing, magazines, newspapers, radio spots, and television commercials. Through advertising in newspaper and television, Toyota can provide informations to the customer on the models of cars which they offer. This method of advertising can attract large number of people as they are using mass media communication. For example, in newspapers, we can generally see and read the Toyota advertisement regarding the models of cars offered by Toyota and its specifications. Toyota offer quality products at an affordable price. In addition to that, Toyotas television advertising which promotes Toyotas cars that are synonym with quality and sophistication will attract customers to purchase its products. Besides that, Toyota can also use outdoor advertising such as billboards and messages painted on the side of buildings. These are common forms of outdoor advertising, which is often used when quick, simple ideas are being promoted. Since repetition is the key to successful promotion, outdoor advertising is most effective when located along heavily travelled city streets and when the product being promoted can be purchased locally. The advantage of advertising is that it gives the organization total control of the message that will be presented to the audience. 2.2 IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS Stakeholder analysis is important for Toyota as it helps the organisation to analyse and investigate the interests of stakeholders that might be affected by the companys policy and business operations. Besides that, through the implementation of stakeholder analysis, the potential conflicts and risks that would jeopardise the business operations of the organisation can be identified. In addition to that, a stakeholder analysis assist Toyota in identifying the opportunities and relationships that can be built on between the organisation and its stakeholders during the implementation stage. Furthermore, Toyota can identify the groups that should be supported to take part in the various different stages of the business activities. Moreover, stakeholder analysis aids Toyota in developing appropriate strategies for stakeholder engagement activity by communicating with its stakeholders. Lastly, stakeholder analysis help Toyota in analysing on methods to decrease the negative impacts on vul nerable groups. 2.3 CONCLUSION Stakeholder analysis serves as an important tool to identify and analyse the relationships between several different stakeholders, besides gaining an understanding on their perceptions on key issues. Stakeholders participation is important for the sustainability of an organisation. This is because, the policy and activities of the organisation will be affected if the stakeholders support or oppose to the companys policy. In the case of Toyota USA, its image in the stakeholders minds has dropped due to the recall of its cars from the market. Toyota realised that it has to change the stakeholders attitude and perception of its company, therefore Toyota developed an advertising campaign which serves as its new strategy in order to gain back the shareholders trust of its organisation as one of the market leader in car manufacturing.

No Universal Truth Essay -- Philosophy Religion Essays

No Universal Truth Hume wrote, â€Å"be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man,† (qtd. in Jones 351). This statement strikes me more than all others, written by Hume or any of the philosophers from W. T. Jones’ Hobbes to Hume. It demonstrates to me that even after all of the inquisition towards what and how we can know anything, and the very methodical ways in which Hume is reputed to examine these things, he realizes that nothing is truly certain and begins to lean towards a pragmatic and radically empirical point of view. It is, therefore, also my conclusion that, as much as we may aspire to find the universal, indubitable, and objective truth, none of it can be proven to be universal, indubitable, and objective. In support of this view—the â€Å"abandonment of the quest for certainty, acceptance of provisional solutions as long as they work, and readiness to discard them when changing conditions make them no longer appropriate†Ã¢â‚¬â€I will endeavor to briefly examine substance, the self, and the presumed necessary connection of ideas or events (Jones 349). By applying his own empirical criterion of meaning to the examination of such a notably philosophical concept as substance, Hume flat out disposes of the entire notion itself. As has been formerly introduced by Descartes, substance is a fluctuating thing that takes on the same meaning as is best described by that certain je ne sais quoi. It is that certain something you just can’t put your finger on, and â€Å"by substance, we can understand nothing else than a thing which so exists that it needs no other thing in order to exist,â€Å" (qtd. in Jones 174-175). Descartes naturally takes this thing to be God, but never questions the meaning of God or substance a... ... and finally removes reasons for the existence of any connection between any of the ideas which we as a species have always held as being related. Hume also refutes any reason to believe in the existence of an external world, or a world without us, which has not been discussed here. In the end, there is really no reason to believe in the existence of existence, if Hume’s deductions are to be taken quite so seriously. Of course, if that were to be done, none could live as they do. Since Hume himself is concerned with a philosophy that concerns the everyday individual, not even he can truly accept that nothing exists. It is when he reaches this point himself that he realizes one can â€Å"be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man,† (qtd. in Jones 351). Works Cited Jones, W. T. Hobbes to Hume. 2nd edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1980.

Group Development Essay

The first stage is the forming stage. During this stage, things are characterized by much uncertainty. There is uncertainty as to what the purpose of the group is, what the structure of the group is, and who the leadership of the group is going to be. Members of the group will want to test the waters and try to determine how far they can go and what they can get away with during this stage of the group development process. The second stage is the storming stage. During this stage of group development, the members of the group accept the existence of the group but are against the restraints put on individual creativity. This can lead to serious problems if there is not some sort of compromise or agreement put in place on allowing individuals to be creative within the guidelines of the project. The third stage is the norming stage. During this stage, relationships among team members are becoming closer and group cohesiveness is coming together. The group identity is really becoming clear. This stage is considered complete when the structure of the group is completely solidified and the members of the group have decided on what is considered proper behavior for members of the group. In my opinion, this is one of the most critical stages in group development. The fourth stage is the performing stage. This stage of group development is really when things start to happen. Members of the team have fully accepted the structure and the team is working towards accomplishing the goals that were set forth initially. The group has gone from getting to know each other to complete understanding and working on accomplishing the  task at hand. The fifth and final stage of group development is the adjourning stage. This is only true for groups that are temporary. Permanent work groups are finished after stage four. This stage is normally when the group finalizes and wraps up the tasks that they have been asked to perform and then they go their separate ways. This stage is hopefully where the project is finalized and the group has been successful at accomplishing the goals that were initially set forth. Problem Identification There are two major problems that I see in this situation. The first problem that I see with this group is that there is going to be conflict of interests from each of the different groups. Each of the groups have different agendas as to how to fully accomplish the goals of the project. This can lead to problems or possibly a severe conflict between one or more of the groups. This differing of opinions and attitudes by the groups could also possibly lead to an overall failure to achieve any of the objectives of the group. The second major problem that I see with this project is demographic diversity. There are such wide and varied demographics in the school district that this project is going to take place. There could be conflicts that one demographic is being favored over another. There could also be problems that stem from this. If one demographic seems to think that another is being favored, then they could cause problems for the overall project and the goals of that project. Retrospective Evaluation The solution for the first problem will be the easiest of the two problems. During the formation of the development group for this project, common goals need to be decided upon by the development team. These goals need to be approved by all of the different entities that have an interest in this project succeeding. There should be one major common goal for the project and all of the groups should agree to this goal. If they cannot agree to a common goal, then there really is no need to go forward with the project. The solution for the second problem is going to be a little harder to solve. I believe that a non-interested third party group should be brought in to oversee the project. This will allow for an impartial representative to make decisions and also to ensure that no one demographic group is being favored more than another. If one groups interests are being pushed and another group see this favoritism, it could lead to problems and thus an overall failure of the project. Therefore, a third party should be placed in charge and there should be no conflicts because they should not favor any one particular group. Reflection The project is all about making things better for the kids of this school district. This could lead to better educational opportunities for all involved within the district. However, there are possible issues that need to be solved for this project to move forward and be a success. If these issues are addressed in the beginning then there should be resolutions and no problems should arise. This will allow a successful project and the enhancement of educational opportunities for the children of the school district.

Strict Liability in Business Law

The American common law adopted the concept of strict liability in early 1960’s. They began to adopt the view that the sellers should bear the cost of injuries or defects in their products as they are in the best position to distinguish the risks associated with their products. The courts of modern times also provide the sellers the indisputable liability for their defective products without the negligence or fault on the part of the seller. The American law institutes call for the various state law departments to recapitulate the developments in strict liability in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1977.In 1997 ALI approved the Restatement (Third) of Torts products liability, which expands the general language of Section 402A into over 20 different sections addressing specific applications of the strict liability ground for recovery. In 1999, the ALI approved Restatement the apportionment of Liability, completely succeeding and expanding upon comparable pro visions of Restatement (Second) of Torts. This Restatement gives paramount importance to the principles of law governing apportionment as liability in cases where there are multiple actors who may have differing degrees of liability.(1)The application of strict liability is important in various segments of business law. Here we shall discuss the scope of strict liability, its essentials and exceptions etc. Moreover we shall try to explore the relationship and contrast of the strict liability with other dimensions in the business law like Rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher, mens rea, negligence, product liability and contract. ———————————————————————————————————— 1. Restatement (Third) of Torts products liability, 1999 Strict Liability 2 Intro ductionâ€Å"He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to plaintiff’s default; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it si unnecessary to inquire to what excuse would be sufficient. – Blackburn J Sec. 402A of Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1977 enunciates that seller of any defective product which is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.It does not matter that the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product; and the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. Moreover the claim under rule of strict liability can be made against Property damage, Compensation for wrongful death, Physical and mental pain a nd suffering Loss of consortium for loss of love and affection, Past, present and future medical bills and Lost past and future wages, DefinitionStrict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any â€Å"fault† on their part. There are situations when a person may liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same or there is no intention to cause the harm or sometimes he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words the law recognizes such type Strict Liability 3 of â€Å"no fault â€Å"liability. (Salmond,1996)(2)The liability arises when a person or company sells a defective product which is unreasonable and dangerous to the user.The defect may in the products design or manufacturing, in the instructions or warning necessary for the product’s safety or in the container or packaging. The main feature of this aspect is, here the injur ed is excluded from proving the negligence of seller. Scope Generally our legal system typically imposes liability for money damages only upon a showing that a person was negligent (i. e. , failed to use due care) or somehow intended to bring about an injury or damage to another. There are cases, however, where a defaulter can be held responsible for an injury even where no negligence or evil intent can be shown .The doctrine of strict liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries sustained by or as a result of an actor's conduct, whether or not the actor used reasonable care and regardless of the actor's state of mind. Strict liability cases are limited to certain narrowly-defined areas of the law, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals and certain statutory offenses. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003) (3) The rule of strict liability is mainly attributed to rule in Rylands Vs Fletcher (4) in which the House of Lords well founded the principle of as st rict liability.In this case, the ———————————————————————————————————— 2. Salmond , Heuston (1996) , Law of Torts, , publisher: Sweet & Maxwell; 21Rev Ed edition , ISBN-13: 978-0421533509 3. Faegre & Benson, (Nov. 2003) UK Trade and Investment, US product liability law 4. Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868) L. R 3 H. L 330 Strict Liability 4 defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill.There were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and the plaintiff’s cold mines on the adjoining land. The defendants did not know the shafts and had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. In this case the court found that even if the defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.The defendant may excuse himself by showing that the occurrence was owing to the plaintiff’s default or that was the consequence of vis major or the act of good. But in this case the court firmly asserts that it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. Normally in these cases, the liability arises not because there was ant fault or negligence on the part of persons, but because he kept such defective products and the same was caused some sort of personal damage to another. In Smedleys Vs Breed, (5)a large manufacturing company of tinned peas was convicted as there found the carcass of a caterpillar.On dismissing the appeal of company the court held it was offence of strict liability, therefore it was not sufficient show that the company had taken all reasonable care to avoid the event. ———————————————————————————————————— 5. Smedleys Vs Breed,(1974) Strict Liability 5 The same view was taken in the famous case Donogue Vs Stevenson (6) in this case A purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer for the appellant.While pouring to the tumbler the appellant found a decomposed body of a snail floated out with her ginger beer. The appellant alleged that she seriously suffered in her health in consequence of having drunk the beer which contains the contaminated contents. On her claim for damages, the court declared that a person who is for gain engages in the business of manufacturing articles of food and drink intended for consumption by members of the public in the form he issues them, is under a duty to take care in the manufacture of these articles.That duty must be to whom he intends to consume his products. The fact is that he manufacturers his commodities for human consumption. Due to this informal nexus he places himself in a relationship with all the potential consumers of his commodities, and that relationship which he assumes and desires for his own ends impose upon him a duty to take care to avoid injuring them. † Hence the manufacturer owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain any noxious matter and that he would be liable for the breach of the duty.Moreover the law looks into the scope of strict liability while it is arising out of indeed consumer’s case. In Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc (7), the leg of four years old was amputated as the result of injuries sustained when her grand father unintentionally backed over her foot wh ile shearing the lawn with ———————————————————————————————————— 6. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) (Sc) 7. Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc. , (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2008) Strict Liability 6 a riding mower.Her parents moved a case against the manufacturer of the riding mower on the basis of strict liability and negligence based on design defect and inadequate warning theories. But the court followed the decision of Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, (8)and held that since the intended user or consumer is limiting the wide application of rule of strict liability the issue still remains that the child is neither user nor intended user or consumer of the mower. Strict liability and mens rea So the offences of strict liability, we ca n say, are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus.In R Vs Storkwain (9) the defendant supplied drugs for which a prescription was required, after being handed a forged prescription. There was no evidence of any negligence or wrong doing on the part of the pharmacist.. On appeal against conviction, it was held that the statute created an offence of strict liability; therefore no proof of mens rea was required. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd vs Attorney-General for Hong Kong (10) following points has been laid down to determine the circumstances to which strict liability to be imposed.(1) There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; ————————————————————————————â⠂¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 8. Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A. 2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) 9. R Vs Storkwain (1986) 10. Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984] 2 All ER 503 Strict Liability 7 (2) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is â€Å"truly criminal† in character;(3) The presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern; (5) Even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.Essentials of strict liability For the application of this rule the foll owing three essentials should be there: 1) Injury by a defective product: In order to succeed the strict liability under the law the plaintiff must show that the injury must be caused by a defective product whose defect existed at the time of injury and the product should be plaintiff’s control. In the recent case of Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en ‘n Ander (11) it was held that the liability arising from the defective products not only related to the personal injury but financial loss also.It was further confirmed that when a manufacture undertakes or market the production without any prior tests and ———————————————————————————————- 11. Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en ‘n Ander, 2002 (2) SA 447 (SCA) Strict Liabilit y 8 consequently it turns hazardous to the consumer such negligent activities expose a liability to the consumer. Here a contractual nexus between the manufacturer and the consumer is not required. (Weir, Tony 2006), (12)2) The goods must be dangerous or defective in nature: Here the plaintiff must show that due to the dangerous nature, such goods can not be used for the ordinary purpose or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose. Thus, a manufacturer owes a duty to supply a product fit for the ordinary purposes and it is to be used and safe notwithstanding a reasonably foreseeable misuse that could cause injury. The decisions in famous cases like Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. ,(13) National Telephone Co. Vs Baker (14)and West Vs Bristol Tramways Co.(15)manifests that the defective products are whatever in form ,whether it is gas, electricity noxious fumes ,the rule of strict liability can be applied. 3) The goods should leave the manufacturer: It is essential that the thing caused injury to the plaintiff must leave from the possession and control of eth defendant. So those defective goods are still with the manufacture is safe from the claim of compensation. In Read Vs Lyons (16) (text) the plaintiff was the employee in the defendant’s munitions factory. While performing her duty a shell was exploded and she was injured . Even———————————————————————————————————– 12. Weir,Tony,( 2006),an introduction to Tort law,2nd edn. , Oxford University Press 13. Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. 84 L. T 765 14. National Telephone Co. Vs Baker (1893) 2 ch 186 15. West Vs Bristol Tramways Co. (1908) 2 K. B 14 16. Read Vs Lyons (1947) A. C 156, 161 Strict Liability 9 though the shell exploded was dangerou s in nature it was held that defendants were not liable as the shell was not left from outside the defendant’s premises and the rule of strict liability could not be applied in this case.4) Breach of warranty: Generally, the law imposes certain warranties (or guaranties) on the sale of products. Such warranties include that the goods are in proper condition for use and free of defects and that they are fit for a particular purpose. Since the court doesn’t disregard the liability of the waivers against the policy and the warranties are limited, the manufacturers and retailers are always held responsible for injuries from the defective and dangerous products. The aspect of breach of warrenty enables the plaintiff to act against the defendant with his complete freedom.Here he need not assert that the defendant is fault. Usually the product claims under the breach of warranty are in quasi contractual nature. Any factual statement or promise about the product ,a description of the product made ,any sample or model provided constitutes the warranty upon which the buyer rely to purchase the goods. ( Faegre & Benson,. 2003)(17) Exceptions/limitations The following are the exceptions to the rule of strict liability. 1) Plaintiff’s own default: Damage caused due to the plaintiff’s own default was considered to be good defense in rule of strict liability.If the plaintiff suffers damages by ———————————————————————————————————— 17. ibid 3 Strict Liability 10 his own intrusion into the defendant’s property he can not complain for the damage so caused. When the damage to the plaintiff’s products/property is caused not so much by the escape of eth thing s collected by the defendants as b y the unusual sensitiveness of plaintiff’s property itself, the plaintiff cannot recover anything. In Eastern and South African Telegraph C. Ltd. Vs Capetown Tramways Co.(18) the plaintiff submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric current from the defendant’s tramways . It was found that the damage was due to the unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiff’s apparatus and such damage will not occur to person carrying on the ordinary business and the defendant held not liable for the such occurrence. 2) Act of god: Act of god or Vis Major was also considered to be a good defense to an action under the rule of strict liability. If the defect is unforeseen and it is without any human intervention the defense of cat of good can be pleaded.In Tennent Vs Earl of Glasgow (19) the court has framed a well maintained definition for the act of god as the circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility. 3) Consent of plaintiff: In cases of volunti non fit injuria i. e where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous /defective product in defendant’s possession, then such liability does not arise. But such consent must arise for the common ———————————————————————————————————— 18.Eastern and South African Telegraph C. Ltd Vs Capetown Tramways Co. (1936) A. C 381 19. Tennent Vs Earl of Glasgow (1864) 2M (H. L) 22, 26-27 Strict Liability 11 benefit of both plaintiff and defendant. For eg: when two persons are living on the different floors of eth same building each of them is deemed to have consented to the installation of things of common benefit such as the water system, gas pip es or electric wiring . When water has been collected for the common benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant will not be liable for any defects happened to such system unless there is negligence on his part.In North Western Utilities Vs London Guarantee,etc Co. Ltd (20) ,the concept of consent for the common benefit had been formulated as there is no such common benefit between a gas or other public utility undertaking and its consumer’s . 4) Act of third party: If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger who is neither defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule. But if the act of the stranger is or can be foreseen by the defendant and the damage can be prevented, the defendant must by due care prevent the damage.If not so, the defendant may be held liable for his act. This principle is laid down in Richards Vs Lothian (21). In this case, some strangers blocked the waste pipes of a wa sh basin, which was otherwise in the control of the defendants, when opened the tap, and the overflowing water damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The defendants were held not liable. 5) Statutory authority: Generally an act done under the authority of a statute is defense ———————————————————————————————————— 20. North Western Utilities Vs London Guarantee,etc Co. Ltd (1936) A.C 108 21. Richards Vs Lothian (1913) A. C 263 Strict Liability 12 to an action for tort. But it cannot be pleaded as a defense when there is negligence. In Green Vs Chelsea Waterworks Co. (22) the defendant co. had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A man belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence o f which plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty. ( Salmond,1996)(23) In practice, the defendant may argue the defenses adopting the following claims.1) The defendant may forward an argument on the basis of misuse of the product sold. But it is to be remembered that the misuse of products can not be forceeble or there is a chance of rebut this argument by the plaintiff that there should have some kind of anticipation on the part of the manufacturer and prevented such misuse by its product design or in its warning. 2)Secondly the defendant can claim that the product has been altered and modified . In order to prove this he has to take adequate measures to provide warnings in connection with the alteration of the products.3) If there is any complaint by the buyer about the defective design, then the defendant may rebut his claim by demonstrating that the product was at sta te of art at the time of manufacture. 4) A manufacturer might be allowed to adduce the evidence on the basis of industry ———————————————————————————————————- 22. Green Vs Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1864) 70 L. T 547 23. ibid 2 Strict Liability 13 custom and standards and government standards related to the manufacture and design. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003)(24)Before the buyers of tacky products were not allowed to sue a manufacturer of or seller of a harmful product in commerce. The decision owes to the principle of â€Å"caveat emptor† â€Å"let the Buyer beware†. Now the burden to prove a products sticks on the other claims of product defect, inadequate instructions, or warnings. Here the plaintiff must prove that that the product caused him harm when it was used for its intended purpose as well. More he has to prove that the manufacturer knew or should have known the product would be used in such a way that would cause harm. Strict liability and NegligenceNegligence is an important element to determine the strict liability of a defendant. Negligence is considered to be the oldest theory of product liability as well as the strict liability. As a general rule it is for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. The initial burden of making out at least prima facie case of negligence as against the defendant lies heavily on the plaintiff, but once this onus is discharged, it will be for the defendant to prove that the incident was the result of inevitable accident or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.(Jones,2007)(25) There are some elements should be proved by the plaintiff in order to make claim against the defendants under the rule of strict liability. ——— ————————————————————————————————— 24. ibid 3 25. Jones, A . Micheal (2007), A text book on Tort, Ch. 2, 9th ed. , publ. by Oxford University Press Strict Liability 14 Duty of care: The plaintiff must prove that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Mere carelessness on the part of defendant doesn’t entitle the plaintiff to sue him.He has to establish that the defendant owed to him a specific legal duty to take care of which he has made a breach. In this connection, in famous case of Donogue Vs Stevenson it was held that a manufacturer of the products which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examin ation and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation of putting up of the products will result in an injury to consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.(26) Breach of duty: Breach of duty means non observance of due care which is required in a particular situation. But here the defendant acted like a reasonable prudent man there is no negligence. In Blyth Vs Birmingham waterworks Co(27). it was clearly explained that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man ,guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.) Proximate cause: The plaintiff should prove that the breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Finally there should be lawful and sufficient injury happened to the plaintiff due to the defective /dangerous product. ——â⠂¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 26. ibid 6 27. Blyth Vs Birmingham waterworks Co (1856) 11Ex. 281Strict Liability15 The manufacturers always have the duty to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing the products.Poor assembling the products, difference in use of component parts and its design specifications, failure to inspect the finished products, component parts and failure in correction in any defective products are some examples to lead the plaintiff to claim under the rule of strict liability. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003) (28) In R Vs Lemon (29)the publisher of a gay news were charged with blasphemous libel against Christ through a poem which was considered as an slur to Christianity.The court held that it is the pure case of blaspheme as they ha d intention to publish so they are responsible for their act. Moreover in Alpha cell Vs Woodward,(30) the company was accused of causing polluted water to enter river by using equipment to prevent any overflow in to the river. But due to the collapse of the machine, the polluted things leaked out to the water. There was no evidence that the defendant is negligent but the court held that the defendant had caused the pollution in the water and they held liable. Strict liability in product liabilityThe â€Å"product liability† defined as the liability of manufacturer, during the chain of distribution, for personal injury, economic loss or property damage caused by sale or use of the product. Here the term ‘product’ denotes the finished goods as well as those items which may have some impact on the consumer expectations, product safety etc. In order to brought the action under strict liability the plaintiff must prove that injury occurred by ———à ¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 28. ibid 3, 24 29. R Vs Lemon (1979)30. Alphacell Vs Woodward, (1972) Strict Liability16 a defective product whose defect existed at the time of injury and at the time which the product left the control of manufactures control. Such product liability is the legal responsibility of the manufacturer to the buyers. It can be occurred at time of the transaction. Generally there are three defects in the product make defendants liable for their act. 1) Manufacturing: even though a few products turns in to the fault during the process of a manufacturing the plaintiff may held liable under rule of strict liability.2) Marketing: In the case of lack of product warning or instructions, the plaintiff can bring an action against the def endant under such liability. 3) Design: A fault in design from previously mentioned might enable the plaintiff to claim for damages against the defendants. ( Miller, Goldberg 2004)(31) Usually the defective and unreasonably dangerous product denotes the desirability or usefulness of the product, the availability of safer goods in same need, likelihood of injury and its possible seriousness and danger.In such cases entitles the plaintiff to recover from the defendants for the injury caused by the product. Here he need not prove any misconduct on the part of the defendant. The law framed such a provision to make the manufacturer vigilant about their production in safe manner. It is the duty of the manufacturer to produce the goods which will not create an unreasonable risk of injury to the consumer at any cost. Such claim can be made against the—————————————————â€⠀Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 31. Miller C. J, Goldberg R. S (September 30, 2004) Product liability 2 edition Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; ISBN-13: 978-0198256786 Strict Liability17 manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer and the maker of component parts. (Restatemet,1999)(32) In recent case of Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. ,(33) 24 Cal. 2d 453 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring) it was clearly stated that on the demand of public policy the responsibility should be fixed even though there is no element of negligence under the circumstances of hazardous and dangerous to life and health due to the defective products. In cost of the cases the injured would be such persons who are not aware and unprepared to meet the consequences. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of defective products that are a menace to the public. It is to th e public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the man