Waiver of Liability and Contract Law Analysis

Overview
In this assignment, you apply contract and product liability law to a business scenario.
Scenario
Mowers, Inc., a fictional company, has a flourishing lawn care business. The business has two full-time employees who have been with the company for five years. All employees are trained on using the lawn equipment and, upon being hired signed a waiver-of-liability contract limiting liability for the company. The owner, Brian, tells his employees “Not to worry – the company will protect you!”
One employee, Lori, was on the job cutting a lawn. Lori was riding a mower, a Ferrari 2000, which was three years old and in good working condition. The step-up on the mower had writing on it with a warning sticker to replace the sandpaper liner for traction every three years due to normal wear and tear. It was replaced every three years as required.
Lori stepped down off the rider, slipped because of moisture from the grass, and severed her pinky toe on the mower blade. When she fell to the ground, the mower continued through the grass and proceeded by itself to cut and mulch a neighbor’s prize roses. Peta, the neighbor, was preparing for a rose competition with a potential grand prize of $10,000.
Instructions
Use FirstPass Draft Review for this assignment, it can help you refine and develop it prior to making your final submission. Use FirstPass at any time even if you do not have a fully completed assignment. The tool is here to offer feedback to guide revisions, helping you refine your work and ensure it aligns with expectations.
Consider the above scenario and write 3–4 pages in which you make the following determinations. Make sure to cite and explain the law for each determination.
Pursuant to contract law requirements, determine whether the waiver of liability signed by Lori is a valid contract and whether verbal assurances by Brian become part of the contract. Support your response.
Determine whether Peta, the plaintiff, has a product liability case against the manufacturer for each of the following defects. Support your response.
Design.
Manufacturing.
Failure-to-warn.
Determine whether Lori, the employee, has a claim for injuries and whether the employee can recover pain and suffering damages per tort or worker’s compensation law. Support your response.
Note:
Remember, you are demonstrating your understanding of the law, so explain the law first and then make your determination. Be informative and show what you know! References should be from credible and reputable legal sources.
Requirements
3–4 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), 1-inch margins on all sides.
Include at least three quality references. The textbook for this class is a required source for this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not count as quality references.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the Sources list are not included in the required assignment page length.
Resources
Use the Strayer Library to conduct your research.
In addition to your textbook,
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is as follows:
Analyze the legal standing and situation of a specific business to achieve a defined result.
School book for Source Purpose: Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment
Marianne M. Jennings 12th editions COPYRIGHT © 2022, 2018 Cengage Learning, Inc

Struggling with where to start this assignment? Follow this guide to tackle your assignment easily!

Waiver of Liability and Contract Law Analysis

To determine whether the waiver of liability signed by Lori is a valid contract, we must analyze contract law principles, particularly those related to enforceability. A waiver of liability is generally enforceable if it meets the following requirements:

1. Offer and Acceptance: Lori signed the waiver, indicating mutual agreement between her and Mowers, Inc.
2. Consideration: Lori’s employment and wages serve as consideration for the contract.
3. Legality: Courts typically uphold waivers unless they violate public policy.
4. Unconscionability: If a waiver is excessively one-sided or if Lori did not fully understand its implications, it may be deemed invalid.
5. Gross Negligence or Intentional Harm: Waivers do not typically protect employers from liability arising from gross negligence.

Brian’s verbal assurance that “the company will protect you” could be considered a modification of the contract. However, under the Parol Evidence Rule, oral statements generally cannot alter a written contract unless fraud, ambiguity, or mistake is present. Since Lori’s waiver was likely a formal document, Brian’s verbal assurance may not be legally binding.

Product Liability Case – Peta v. Manufacturer

Peta may pursue a product liability case against the manufacturer of the Ferrari 2000 mower under the following defect claims:

1. Design Defect: A design defect exists if the mower’s inherent design posed a foreseeable risk. However, since the mower had a step-up warning sticker and sandpaper liner replacement requirements, the design appears compliant with safety standards. Peta’s claim under this category would require proving that a safer alternative design was feasible and ignored.
2. Manufacturing Defect: A manufacturing defect occurs when a product deviates from its intended design. Here, the mower was in good working condition, and there’s no evidence of improper assembly or faulty components. Unless an expert testifies that the specific mower had a defect in production, a manufacturing defect claim may not succeed.
3. Failure to Warn: Manufacturers have a duty to warn users about non-obvious risks. The mower had a warning sticker about maintaining traction, which was followed. However, Lori’s accident resulted from moisture exposure rather than the mower’s inherent risks. If the manufacturer failed to warn about slippery surfaces exacerbating the hazard, Peta might have a claim. However, this would likely be weak since common knowledge dictates caution on wet surfaces.

Lori’s Claim for Injuries

Lori’s potential recovery hinges on whether she files a claim under workers’ compensation or tort law:

1. Workers’ Compensation: Most states require employers to provide workers’ compensation insurance, which covers medical expenses and lost wages but not pain and suffering. Since Lori was injured on the job, she is likely eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, barring any exclusions.
2. Tort Law (Negligence Claim Against Employer):
   • If Mowers, Inc. was grossly negligent (e.g., failing to maintain safety measures beyond the standard requirement), Lori could argue that the company breached a duty of care.
   • However, because the employer followed the manufacturer’s safety guidelines, gross negligence may be hard to establish.
   • If Lori sues outside workers’ compensation, she could seek pain and suffering damages, but she must prove employer fault.

Conclusion

• Lori’s waiver is likely valid, and Brian’s verbal assurance does not alter it under contract law.
• Peta’s strongest claim is a failure-to-warn case, but it is not guaranteed to succeed.
• Lori can recover through workers’ compensation but would have difficulty pursuing a tort claim against Mowers, Inc.

By analyzing contract, tort, and product liability law, we can conclude that Mowers, Inc. is largely shielded from legal liability, but potential litigation risks remain.

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER NOW