The claim is that there is a duty of care on the manufacturer to prevent the diversion of a product into the hands of a criminal who has bought the product lawfully and proceeds to use the product in a later crime. Does this standard of care also apply to automobiles, knives, and motorcycles, or is it just a claim applicable to rifles? What duty does a manufacturer which legally made a product and legally sold a product to a person legally allowed to buy the product owe to a fourth party? I have a hard time seeing the duty or breach. The claim seems to say that those exist because of some nexus and consequent damage?
The claim is that there is a duty of care on the manufacturer to prevent the diversion of a product into the hands of a criminal who has bought the product lawfully and proceeds to use the product in a later crime. Does this standard of care also apply to automobiles, knives, and motorcycles, or is it just a claim applicable to rifles? What duty does a manufacturer which legally made a product and legally sold a product to a person legally allowed to buy the product owe to a fourth party? I have a hard time seeing the duty or breach. The claim seems based that duty and breach are presumed because of some nexus of the product and consequent damage. Doesn’t duty come first?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The claim is that there is a duty of care on the manufacturer to prevent the diversion of a product into the hands of a criminal who has bought the product lawfully and proceeds to use the product in a later crime. Does this standard of care also apply to automobiles, knives, and motorcycles, or is it just a claim applicable to rifles? What duty does a manufacturer which legally made a product and legally sold a product to a person legally allowed to buy the product owe to a fourth party? I have a hard time seeing the duty or breach. The claim seems to say that those exist because of some nexus and consequent damage?
The claim is that there is a duty of care on the manufacturer to prevent the diversion of a product into the hands of a criminal who has bought the product lawfully and proceeds to use the product in a later crime. Does this standard of care also apply to automobiles, knives, and motorcycles, or is it just a claim applicable to rifles? What duty does a manufacturer which legally made a product and legally sold a product to a person legally allowed to buy the product owe to a fourth party? I have a hard time seeing the duty or breach. The claim seems based that duty and breach are presumed because of some nexus of the product and consequent damage. Doesn’t duty come first?