Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company v. Martinez - Essay Example

Running head: business Business Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company v. Martinez The case between Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company and Roberto Martinez is a consequence of ignoring warning signs given by the Tire Company while mounting the tire on the rim by Martinez. Despite Martinez’s mistake, the court’s decision to support Martinez in the case is based on latest reform of law of torts. The court considered the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which, in my opinion, is highly ambiguous as well as misleading.

This law states emphasizes product liability should consider reasonable alternative design if available, which can minimize risks of failure or accident further compared to conventional product models. In this case, my vote would be for the dissenting group, not only because of Martinez’s mistake of ignoring the warning signs on the product but also because of ambiguity in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. In accordance with Goodrich’s appeal to Court to depart from the standard, Restatement (Third) of Torts, it would be better to follow the more certain standard, Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Goodrich has provided complete and clear instructions as well as warning signs on the product usage, which Martinez ignored and caused himself severe irreparable injuries. Goodrich cannot be held responsible for this in any manner. If Goodrich were to be punished for their negligence not adopting better measures with lesser risk potential, the tort standards need reformation. Any reformation should be able to substantially reduce damages and/or tort litigation in order to be effective. The latest standard only advises that manufacturers have to incorporate alternative designs or processes, if available, to reduce risks from products and improve product liability.

Evidences to prove that the alternative tyre design, with single strand programmed bead, are very few; even this design does not completely eliminate the dangers. At the same time, evidences of accidents with Goodrich’s conventional design are also very few. In order to further minimize the risks, Goodrich provided clear warning signs. This means, Goodrich has taken sufficient caution to minimize risks from their product. In order to encourage manufacturers to introduce the alternative product designs that can further reduce risks of accidents, the Restatement (Third) of torts need to be reformed.

The new law of torts needs to be much clear, and should lay out all possible factors to be considered to determine if the alternative design is reasonably safe. In other words, the Restatement (Third) needs to be elaborated in order to reduce litigation risks as well as reduce damages to consumers and/or manufacturers. Product designs do not remain constant and so would the types of and magnitude of risks associated with usage of the product. This would require a much comprehensive and clear law of torts.