A Day at the Beach

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared for Ms. Nicole Hahn, Mr. Patrick McDuff’s legal counsel, to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses that exist in any lawsuit(s) that might be filed on behalf of McDuff. These evaluations are based on statistical, legal, ethical, and loss of earnings analysis.

In the statistical analysis, government survey data was used to determine the relationship between the accident rates among drivers wearing flip-flops and other types of footwear. Using a scatter plot, null hypothesis and regression analysis we found that the data from the government survey support Ms. Hahn’s position.

In the legal analysis we have determined that Jetson is liable to McDuff for negligence and that Sandpiper Footwear, is not strictly liable to McDuff for failure to warn of the danger involved in driving while wearing flip-flops. By analyzing all six criteria for negligence, we have found that McDuff will prevail in his assertion of negligence; however, in the case of strict liability we have found that Sandpiper Footwear is not strictly liable since the criteria for that were not met.

In the loss of earnings analysis, we have calculated Mr. McDuff’s twelve years loss of wages based on his protected 3% union rate increase, COLA of 3.33%, 25 % of Federal and State taxes, and a present value rate of 8%. Based on these calculations Mr. McDuff’s projected award amount will be $427,020.

In the ethical analysis, the rights theory and the front page test theory have been used to determine whether Sandpiper has an ethical responsibility to warn consumers of the potential dangers of wearing flip-flops while driving. By analyzing these two theories, we have found that the producer has an ethical responsibility to put warning labels on the product, in this case on the flip-flops.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose: This report has been prepared to assist Ms. Nicole Hahn in evaluating the lawsuit on behalf of Mr. McDuff.

During summer of 2009, when the...