Custom «Business Assignment» Essay Paper Sample

Under this case where the estate in which Brandon Stroud was a member is suing Textron Company for product liability negligence after Stroud was killed at night as he was taking guests through a public road with a Textron's golf car that did not have lights. Golf cars are banned from being used on public roads and also the South Carolina authority does not require the golf cars to be equipped with lights. These golf cars are meant to be used to carry golfers in golf fields from one location to another and considering the fact that golf can only be played during the day hence there is no need to fix the golf cars with lights.

At Carolina state court, the Textron Company can defend itself from the suite made by the estate in various ways. On the claim of negligence on the duties they owe users of their products, the company can state that there is no product liability based on negligence by stating that although they had not warned on the use of their golf cars on public roads at night, the Carolina state had laws that restricted use of golf cars on public roads and they had no law to prevent use of golf cars with no lights. With this knowledge, the company had no need to warn Brandon not to use the car on public roads at night as it was still against the law and the estate was expected to be aware of that(Reuters, 2011).

In this case, Brandon and the estate knew the law well as ignorant of law is no defense and hence it was his negligence that caused his death as he went against the state's laws. Moreover, the deceased may have been driving under influence of alcohol as they were from a party drinking. And according to law a person under influence of alcohol is not supposed to drive.

Lack of lights on the golf car was not a defection as the car was meant to be used in golf field where golf is only played during the day. Owing that the car was sold to be used in South Carolina hence the company knew that the car would only be used in golf field as the state had banned use of golf cars in public roads. Moreover, the car was designed to be used in golf fields and not for public roads and also owing to the fact that it did not cause an accident in golf field hence there was no negligence from the company's side(Darien, 2010).

The cause of the accident was that another car hit the golf car resulting to the death of Brandon; hence it was not the golf car's defection that caused the accident. Moreover, the car did not develop a problem resulting to the accident but it was Brandon who neglected road rules and attempted to cross the road while another car was coming hence resulting to the accident. If Brandon followed the rules of the road on crossing a road, the accident could not have occurred. So this was Brandon's mistake not the Textron's company mistake.

The estate noticed that the golf car had defections and was unreasonably dangerous after the car had been damaged and hence there was no way they could provide physical evidence that the car had other defects apart from lack of lights which have been ruled out as the Carolina state does not require golf cars to be used at public roads at night even if they have lights. To add onto this the estate did not tell the company that the car would be used in public roads. Hence they could not receive any damages fees as they had no physical evidence on the claims they had.

In conclusion, under all this circumstances, it is evident that the company has no negligence toward the estate. The company had done its part accordingly and there was no need of stating things that were against the law as that was expected to be clear to the customer. Moreover, the car was used to break the state's laws and hence it was used for a purpose that it was not meant to.