Dupont Case Study Tort

Defenses, Privileges, And Damages Strict Liability Immunities Statute of Limitations Defamation and Invasion of Privacy Defenses, Privileges, and Damages Mass Tort Law Defense The court ruled that the damages claimed from DuPont was primarily on the allegations of injuring local residents through the contamination of their property by the release of harmful substances like cadmium, arsenic and lead at the zinc smelting site of the company. The case is a classic example of strict Tort.

This is a case where the accused did not intentionally intend to cause harm to the injured and yet the actions resulted in alleged harm and discomfort. In this case, though DuPont did not intend to cause harm directly, the actions of the company allegedly caused harm to the local residents in terms of contamination and the injury to their property.

In the future companies would be more careful to take care of the possible harmful activities like the extraction and use of harmful chemicals during the production process and the proper and safe disposal of such waste. This verdict is clearly a precedent for future such allegations of strict tort and unintentional negligence (Batten, 2011).

The medical monitoring expenses would cost nearly $500 million as the plaintiffs claimed that the health factors affected by the poisonous chemicals be monitored over a period of 40 years that included the anticipated escalation in medical expenses over a period of 40 years. DuPont can appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals against the verdict.

UNIT 6: Strict Liability Discussion 1 When medicines and cases where people's lives are permanently put at risk by the use of products that were supposed to have no harmful effects, it is logical that courts award such high value verdicts for compensation to the plaintiffs. Most of the companies have third party insurance in relation to such law suits and the insurance companies have to provide the money for compensation in cases where courts make awards to plaintiffs. This creates a financial strain in the insurance companies.

The courts are regularly flooded with such allegations and strict Torts where unintentional harm is caused through the use of products or services w=that were supposed to be safe for users. The courts have to decide where the allegations by the plaintiffs were legitimate or not and whether the harm caused was due to the use of the products claimed. Out of court settlements is the only way that companies can avoid these legal law suits and these needs to be done as soon as there are complaints.

These compensation costs are significant to the company and hence the third party insurance costs obviously go up as the bulk of the financial burden is borne by the insurance companies if there is insurance covered (Batten, 2011). Discussion 2 In the case Wright v. Schum, Jason Wright is the plaintiff and John Schum is the respondent in the Supreme Court of Nevada.

This is a case of a dog bite were 11-year-old Jason Wright was bitten by an escaped pit bulldog on while he was walking down the road after a swimming session. The verdict was in favor of Jason where the court ruled against the owner of the pit bulldog but the court dismissed the case against respondent Schum the landlord of the space that was leased out to the owner of the bulldog from where it escaped.

The court held the owner of the dog responsible for the act of the dog but spared the land owner from strict liability on the basis that as a landlord Schum could not be held responsible for the negligent conduct of the tenants or for any form of injuries caused to third persons and hwne the injuries did not happen on the leased premises (Justia Law, 2015). In the case, the court took cognizance of strict tort against the owner of the dog for causing unintentional harm and injury.

But the owner of the premises was let off as the owner did not directly have any role to play in the injury and the act as the tenant was responsible to use the leased.