Based on the case presented before the court, Peach should be held accountable for Morison’s damage. First, the company should ensure that it abides by the law by providing guidelines that prohibit texting while driving. When the phone user goes ahead to text while driving like what was observed during that case study, the mistake will be for the owner of the phone and not the company. In any way, the phone owner can claim that he/she did not know that it was wrong to text while driving. This means that the manufacture of the phones must be held accountable for all the damages. It also requires the law to give full descriptions of how to use certain products. In this case, it will include recommending that people should not use phones while driving.
B. Rule for Establishing Liability
The element of negligence, in this case, can be viewed from two points of view. First, it is negligence on the side of Edward as it is common sense not to text while driving as the entire attention might shift from the road to the one that is being presented in that phone. On the other side, it there is negligence on the manufacturing side because they fail to outline that their customers should not text while driving since they are putting their lives in danger. In any case, the client can indicate that the phone did not have that capacity, which is seen in Morrison’s case. The best way of establishing liability is through understanding the concept behind it. The manufactures should not assume that every person will understand that driving while texting is wrong. They could have included more information about the penalties of texting while driving. In this case, the people would follow those measures as they would be certain about the consequences of their actions.
The law provides a detailed analysis of the Transport Act as it tends to guide drivers while they are using these public laws. On the other hand, it is the manufacturers’ responsibility to remind the people about putting their lives in danger when they go against certain measures. For example, most alcoholic beverage companies tend to warn their customers about the excessive use of their product. This means that if their client goes ahead and overuses it, which results in accident, the manufacturers would not be blamed. The law provides clear guidelines on how such measures should be conducted. This is to prevent the manufacturer from any case in the event that the consumer fails to act within their guidelines. That phone user should even have explained through a written notice to their website about the dangers of engaging in any process that includes driving while texting. However, based on the way that they failed to administer such policies, they must be held accountable.
II. Strict Product Liability
In this case, product liability is that manufacturers of the phone failed to inform the consumers about the danger of driving while texting. It is likely that the product might be in good shape and did not directly result from the customer’s damage. However, the law ensures that product liability is upheld by guiding the customers. When developing this product, it is the manufacturers’ responsibility to evaluate some of the impacts that the product might have on the consumers. In this case, the manufacture failed to outline how the product should not be used when driving. The assumption is that the driver did not know that it was dangerous to use the phone will be driving.
One of the things that need to be proven is how the company’s management failed to pass useful information to their customers about the danger of using that product while driving. The second thing that the court will want is a Witness Protection Act that will ensure that the third party remains neutral. In some cases, the person might be called upon to testify about that issue. In that way, Edward might give information that aims to ensure that he is not held liable for anything.
The rule of law must be applied in this case to determine if Morison’s argument against Peach. First, Peach should be found guilty of negligence based on two different accounts. First, the company had a role to play in ensuring that it educates its audience on how they should use those products. It must include how the customers would be impacted if they fail to use that product in the right way. Such action will create fear and result in future individuals failing to make the wrong assumption about the case. Another aspect that can be noticed about the case is that maybe Edward ought to be punished for his action as in any way, people are taught the right way to drive. One of the ways is through people trying to avoid using any product that will destroy them. This means that the court will also seek to find more information from Edward about the whole issue. As much as Peach might try to cover him based on the fact that he has no money to compensate them, the court will still ensure that he faces the consequences for his action. It is entirely wrong to drive while the driver’s mind is one something else. It possesses major threats to the lives of the passengers.