Reference no: EM131241012

Report Format Requirements:

• Label each Part of analysis, as Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D.

• Analyses should be comprehensive, fully supported/justified/explained, specific, and detailed in rationale (this is a most important requirement of this project).

• Analyses should be paragraph format.

• All in text citations must be in APA proper format. This means you must provide in-text citations and a reference list for the citations.

• The paper should be at least three pages minimum (not counting cover page, question, or excessive spacing), in order to be sufficiently justified.

• Use at least one (but feel free to cite more) relevant case (make sure it is relevant to the facts) for your discussion FOR EACH PART, the cases may be assigned reading cases or cases you research.

• Follow directions for assignment closely.

• Read the following case scenario.

Scenario: Shine, Inc. (Shine), a commercial interior and exterior window washing e business operated profitably for 10 years with no legal claims against it. Shine had always purchased its cleaning solutions from Glow, Inc. (Glow), a company that manufactures only chemical-free cleaning products. All products used in the window washing service are chemical-free cleaning products and supplies, e.g., gloves, masks, etc.

For 6 months, 3 client-companies operating in large office spaces reported to Shine that many employees were complaining of rashes, headaches, and/or nausea after Shine completed routine window washing services using its usual Glow cleaning products in the offices.

The symptoms of many employees worsened over the months; many needed medical treatment such as allergy medications, and some missed work due to their symptoms.

Shine met with client representatives several times about the complaints, but claimed that no products or cleaning procedures had changed during the 6 months that the products had never before caused harm to consumers or users, that the products were inspected and stored in the usual manner, and that thus, the employee problems had to be related to other causes.

National Office Services, Inc., (National) one of the 3 client companies, eventually sued Shine and Glow under strict product liability for defective and negligent manufacture of the cleaning products, and for failure to adequately warn of dangers of the cleaning products.

Shine and Glow denied liability claiming that the products were not defective, not dangerous, and that Shine was protected by an exculpatory clause in its contract with National Office Services, Inc. in which Shine waived liability for injuries to client-consumers.

The court ruled in favor of National Office Services, Inc. awarding damages.

Part A. Write a comprehensive analysis agreeing or disagreeing with court's ruling in the National Office Services case and why you agree/disagree.

Discuss in your analysis, among other things:

• whether you agree/disagree - and why - with specific parties sued

• whether you agree/disagree - and why - that the symptoms of the office workers support a valid claim that the Glow products were defective

• whether you agree/disagree - and why - there should have been a warning on the Glow products

Part B. Should the exculpatory clause in the National Office Services contract with Shine affect the outcome of the lawsuit, and why or why not?

Part C. Analyze and discuss in detail the purpose and importance of product liability law in Society.

Part D. Should product liability lawsuits be limited in any way, why or why not? If so, in what ways should litigation be limited.