Christian Guirado Intro to Law and Politics 11/29/17 Exam #3 Question 2 Tort law deals with product failures that may result in injury and death to the user as well as legal wrongs inflicted on another person. It deals specifically with the amount of liability that the manufacturer takes in a court of law due to a malfunction or injuries with the products. Injury when dealing with tort law does not only apply to bodily injury, but also applies to wrongs or damages done to a person reputation, rights, or their property. The history of tort law underwent three distinct historical periods in which the process and definitions changed greatly. First, was the agricultural period, the industrial period and the product liability revolutionary period …show more content…
During the agricultural period, the thought process fell along the lines of everyone being responsible for their own actions. There was a marked lack of tort law in this period due to this mind set due to the lack of actual businesses creating products. Thus, any injuries that came from a malfunction of a product did not result in any court cases, as this was not the congruent with the thought processes of the time. This time period conformed to the certain rules that guaranteed fairness to all, and thus the need for tort law in regards to product liability was very low. There was very little risk taking in terms of product creation, as most products were usually hand made and made for one purpose. Furthermore, economic advancement was highly discouraged as most people had their own places and jobs for the entirety of their life. There was no room for advancement beyond the economic status ascribed to them due to their family. Tort law (regarding product liability) in this period was very near absent, there were no companies or corporation that would need protection against …show more content…
Ideas congruent with legal realism became the norm as it regards tort law. Within the 21st century numerous cases arose that specifically dealt with product liability and tort law. Take the Stella Liebeck case, in which Mrs. Liebeck purchased a coffee from McDonalds, and after attempting to remove the lid of her coffee, she spilled the coffee all over her lap. The coffee was served at a temperature higher than 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and inflicted second and third degree burns on her crotch and inner thighs. This case has been seen as “frivolous” by the media, but it is a land mark case in tort law as Liebeck’s lawyers argued that McDonald’s coffee was defective, due to it being served at a temperature that was unsafe for human consumption. This case showed some of the main reforms of the era. For example, liability on the manufacturers was increased in the case of defective items. Contributory negligence was also weakened, with more focus being placed on comparative negligence, where a person could recover some assets, even if they were found negligent in the case. There has been a higher emphasis on information available regarding defects and