LEG500: law, ethics and corporate governanceAll answers should be in paragraph form.Instructions - ReadEstate of Simpson v. GM, LLC. UsingtheWeek 3 Activity...

1. Summarize the facts of the case:
Trask Simpson who was employed by Dort Steel a company which fixed broken racks or disassembled them for reuse of their parts as a welder .
When the rack in this case (large metal container) was delivered to Dort, Simpson inspected it and decided to spot-weld a portion of the floor. As he started to raise the left side-wall, the gas spring blew apart. Propelled by the high-pressure nitrogen gas, the cylinder flew through the air and lodged in Simpson's face, penetrating his sinus and brain which caused severe injuries to his life and cause very early death.
He died in August 2018, five years after the accident but before his death he filed a case for a number of entities asserted with his accident as follows
· GM (supplier of the rack) PRIVATE SETTLED
· Gonzalez Contract Services they are the designer of the rack PRIVATE SETTLED
· Keener Corporation they are the manufacturer of the rack
· JWF Technologies they are the supplier of the gas spring
· Stabilus, Inc. they are the manufacturer of the gas spring
1. ARGUMENTS:
· Plaintiff
· Stabilus
· The spring was not design with the strength it was required or it has somehow malfunction so we can confine/ intern a claim against Stabilus to a manufacturing defect.
· They argued that they have already seen that there may be overextension due to extra force as Stabilus has accounted for this type of errors earlier, also if their safety function has been effective that means that there will not be this type of accident so that it can also be understood as Stabiles misuse of products and selling defective products so I want to let jury decide whether it is wrong or not to have this case motion.
· Also according to the experts if we even put more than 1000 pounds of weight on it that also balls stud will go first s why was it nt done here if there was no problem in the spring that cause such an incident
· JWF Technology
· Plaintiff fights for why is the JWF not responsible or why is it not negligent as it was during their watch that a defective product was incorporated to others and if they would have checked these products it would not have caused such accidents so they should also bear responsibility for the defective product.
· Moreover since they had done a simulation that healped Gonzalez in the selection of the gas spring incorporated on the criteria that they provided so that it can be more effective in the rack why there was this incident. If it was done more comprehensively they this incident would have never happened and we will all not be here
· Keener Corporation
· For KEENER Plaintiff's response was on the fact that they are the ultimate on those arguments. Plaintiff contended that because Keener was "the ultimate manufacturer, this is he was the one who we brought this rack from so “ “it could not avoid liability for the defective spring "under the Products Liability Statute or Comstock," and an "implied warranty" theory. Also Keener has also said that they can express warranty that the product is risk free that means that the products don’t have any defects which they failed to finish so they must be legally responsible.
· So they also plead for the court to...