Consider the following scenario: Best Herbals, Inc. Best Herbals, Inc., sells na
ID: 427256 • Letter: C
Question
Consider the following scenario:
Best Herbals, Inc.
Best Herbals, Inc., sells natural remedy medicines. Although the company is aware that its diet pills pose a risk of heart damage, the company decides not to update its product label warning because it is too costly and may damage sales. As a result of Best Herbal’s business decision, one of its consumers, Tonya, suffers a heart attack after ingesting the diet pills. Tonya eventually recovers from the heart attack, but her hospitalization causes her to miss two weeks of work.
In this scenario, Best Herbals, Inc., owes a duty to warn consumers of possible side effects associated with its products. The company breached its duty by failing to warn its customers of possible side effects. It is foreseeable that a customer would be injured by the lack of a warning. The harm Tonya suffered was a direct result of the company’s breach. Best Herbals, Inc., must compensate Tonya for her injury (heart attack) and damages incurred (hospital bill and lost wages).
As this lesson’s media on video game violence illustrates, actual causation is one of the most difficult negligence elements to prove. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s act or omission was the cause in fact of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. That is, the plaintiff must establish that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. In the case of video games, causation is difficult to prove because of conflicting research about the impact video games have on kids.
Read James v. Meow Media, Inc., on page 105 of your Business Law textbook.
Explain the elements of negligence and why the plaintiffs felt the defendants were negligent.
Why did the appeals court rule in favor of the defendants in this case?
In your opinion, do you believe the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs? Explain your viewpoint.
Explanation / Answer
The (alleged) elements of negligence in the case were
The main ground of the case was that the materials distributed through the video games were violent and it encourages the youngsters to resort to similar behavior. The materials should be restricted. However the appellate court recognized that restricting the content on video games will be a violation of the first amendment of USA constitution. The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and if the court were to consider the content of video game to be offensive or illegal it would be a clear violation to freedom of speech. This is why, the court dismissed the case in favor of defendant.
In my opinion, the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. However, it is not in the way of restricting the content of the video games. It owes a duty of care to products that are safe to use. In case, if the video game cartridge or console would have caused fire or damaged lives or properties, we could consider a case of negligence. The defendant was dutiful in this regard. However, when it comes to the content, the defendant did not have a duty of care. In fact, the parents of assaulting youngster should have assessed their kid’s psychology and take appropriate action.