Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Vs Lalabilte Case Summary

Running head: Products Liability

PRODUCTS LIABILITY
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION v. LALIBERTE

“The phrase (caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) warned that most sellers made no promises with regard to their goods in the U. S. and Britain for centuries. However, common law had shifted by the middle of the twentieth century, allowing those injured by dangerous products to hold both sellers and manufacturers accountable (Halbert/Ingulli, 2012 pg. 282).” In response to question 1: Describe the company, type of business and the product safety issue that led to the lawsuit. “Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., (MMNA) headquartered out of Cypress, CA and is responsible for manufacturing, financing, distributing and marketing of brand coupes,…show more content…
Mitsubishi is not exempt from the debate about product liability and consumer safety; which would leave any company vulnerable while questioning the role their company could play in such a default. Take for instance the case of “Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Laliberte in June 2008. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Appellant, v. Peter Laliberte, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott T. Laliberte, deceased, Appellee. No. $D08-2211, Court of Appeal of Florida, Forth District, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 8651; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18.430; 430. L. Weekly D 1327, June 16, 2010, Decided. Subsequent History: Rehearing granted by, vacated by, Opinion withdrawn by, substituted opinion at Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Laliberte, 2010 Fla. App. Lexis 19098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Dec. 15, 2010). Prior History: Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Elizabeth. T. Maass, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005-006369 CA AI. “Peter Laliberte, the personal representative of Laliberte’s estate, filed a products liability lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on theories of strict liability and negligence (LexisNexis