Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Engineering Tort

Practice case study on engineering torts.
Course

Ethics (HM322)

7 Documents
Students shared 7 documents in this course
Academic year: 2022/2023
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

Engineering Tort

A biomedical engineer (Smith) invented an electronic device for the continuous monitoring of pulse rates. Since the microelectronics is powered by a single 1 single volt battery, the device can be worn like a wristwatch. One of the features of the monitor is a power cell life indicator comprising a small button which, when depressed, beeps if the battery is not exhausted. Another feature is that a "normal" pulse rate range can be defined by the user. When the pulse rate drops below the selected range, the monitor automatically emits a steady buzz; when the rate exceeds the range, the monitor automatically beeps. Smith applied for and received a patent on the pulse monitoring device. Because of the nature of the device, FDA approval was not obtained. Smith found a source of venture capital and began to manufacture the device. Smith marketed the device through drug stores and other retail outlets. Jones suffered from fainting spells. The cause of the fainting spells was undiagnosed, but Jones had observed that each episode was preceded by a substantially elevated pulse rate. Jones had also observed that fainting episodes never occurred until about fifteen to thirty seconds after his pulse rate exceeded 100. Jones purchased a pulse rate monitoring device to alert him when a fainting episode was imminent. Jones set the "normal" range for pulse rate to 50-90, and began to use the device. Several weeks later, while Jones was moving the lawn, his device beeping. Jones went inside, laid down on the sofa, and fainted. About a year later, Jones was driving down a street near his home. Without warning, he fainted and lost control of the car. The car was a total loss, and Jones was seriously injured. The device, which was not damaged, was found and tested. The power cell was exhausted. When loaded with a fresh power cell, the device functioned normally. However, Jones sued Smith for providing a device which was defective and unusually dangerous because there was no warning that the device required periodic replacement of the power cell. Smith argued that batteries are commonly used in modern society, and ordinary men know, or should know that batteries become exhausted and therefore require periodic replacement. Smith pointed out that the device included a mechanism for testing the state of the power cell, and that Jones should have used that feature from time to time. The court noted that Smith intended the device for individuals with health problems and that the potential for harm to such individuals was substantial if the device failed. The court also pointed out that Smith was in the best position to realize that the device would fail if the power cell was not replaced periodically, and that a warning about the danger of not maintaining the power cell would have been simple and inexpensive. The court

concluded that Smith's failure to warn users of these dangers rendered the device defective and unreasonably dangerous to the user, and awarded judgment for Jones.

Engineers are liable for injury caused by defective products to the extent they are "seller" in the stream of commerce that place the product in the hands of a consumer. It is important to realize that strict product liability does not depend on whether or not you were negligent, but rather on whether or not you are a "seller" of a product that proves to be "defective." Thus, a biomedical engineer who creates a medical device that proves to be defective and injures a patient, may be liable for the patient's injuries even if the engineer was not negligent, and the physician using the device was.

As innovators, engineers are at the very beginning of the process that places a product "for sale" in the stream of commerce. Inventors holding patents make the first "sale" in the commercial chain when they transfer their technical know-how. For example, the inventor of an improvement for a medical device makes the first sale in its commercial chain when he assigns or licenses his patent rights to a device manufacturer. Like engineers who design products, inventors are usually in the best position to understand the dangers associated with their products or inventions and to take whatever steps are necessary to warn users and to insure against risks. Engineers and inventors are also in a good position to understand the utility of their inventions and the extent to which that utility balances potentially unsafe characteristics. Finally, while engineers may claim to provide a service (rather than a product), the property nature of the ideas they create and of the final product that reaches users probably distinguishes engineers from attorneys, physicians, and other professionals who provide essentially services and are therefore not liable for products liability.

.

Was this document helpful?

Engineering Tort

Course: Ethics (HM322)

7 Documents
Students shared 7 documents in this course

University: Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology

Was this document helpful?
Engineering Tort
A biomedical engineer (Smith) invented an electronic device for the continuous
monitoring of pulse rates. Since the microelectronics is powered by a single 1.5 single
volt battery, the device can be worn like a wristwatch. One of the features of the
monitor is a power cell life indicator comprising a small button which, when
depressed, beeps if the battery is not exhausted. Another feature is that a "normal"
pulse rate range can be defined by the user. When the pulse rate drops below the
selected range, the monitor automatically emits a steady buzz; when the rate exceeds
the range, the monitor automatically beeps. Smith applied for and received a patent on
the pulse monitoring device. Because of the nature of the device, FDA approval was
not obtained. Smith found a source of venture capital and began to manufacture the
device. Smith marketed the device through drug stores and other retail outlets. Jones
suffered from fainting spells. The cause of the fainting spells was undiagnosed, but
Jones had observed that each episode was preceded by a substantially elevated pulse
rate. Jones had also observed that fainting episodes never occurred until about fifteen
to thirty seconds after his pulse rate exceeded 100. Jones purchased a pulse rate
monitoring device to alert him when a fainting episode was imminent. Jones set the
"normal" range for pulse rate to 50-90, and began to use the device. Several weeks
later, while Jones was moving the lawn, his device beeping. Jones went inside, laid
down on the sofa, and fainted. About a year later, Jones was driving down a street near
his home. Without warning, he fainted and lost control of the car. The car was a total
loss, and Jones was seriously injured. The device, which was not damaged, was found
and tested. The power cell was exhausted. When loaded with a fresh power cell, the
device functioned normally. However, Jones sued Smith for providing a device which
was defective and unusually dangerous because there was no warning that the device
required periodic replacement of the power cell. Smith argued that batteries are
commonly used in modern society, and ordinary men know, or should know that
batteries become exhausted and therefore require periodic replacement. Smith pointed
out that the device included a mechanism for testing the state of the power cell, and
that Jones should have used that feature from time to time. The court noted that Smith
intended the device for individuals with health problems and that the potential for
harm to such individuals was substantial if the device failed. The court also pointed
out that Smith was in the best position to realize that the device would fail if the
power cell was not replaced periodically, and that a warning about the danger of not
maintaining the power cell would have been simple and inexpensive. The court

Students also viewed

Related documents