Rosa V. Taser International Case Summary

982 Words4 Pages
In the lawsuit of Evelyn Rosa and Robert Rosa, as individuals, and Holly Rosa; in response to the death of Michael Robert Rosa, Plaintiff, vs Taser International, Inc., the legal theory pertains to product liability. Legal theory,” refers to the principle under which a litigant proceeds, or on which a litigant bases its claims or defenses in a case. It can also be the law or body of rules of conduct which are of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by a controlling authority.” The Rosa’s were seeking punitive damages in the death of their son from Taser International, Inc., in the state of California. The California Civil Code Section 3294 states: “an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is…show more content…
There was no punitive damages received. It was stated, “California law would not extend negligence liability to a manufacturer in this circumstance, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of TASER because the risk of lactic acidosis was not knowable in 2003. Thus, we do not reach TASER’s alternative arguments. AFFIRMED.” Taser International Inc. cannot be held liable, based on the information available at the time, for not issuing warnings that repeated exposure to its product could lead to death, said an appellate court, in upholding dismissal of a 2004 wrongful death lawsuit.
To conclude, I support the decision of the courts in the case of Rosa vs Taser International, Inc. Under tort law, strict liability the plaintiff needed to prove the defendant’s product was responsible for the death of their son. Taser International Inc. was able to prove their product met the safety standards and documentation, with the taser gun. A key point noted by the court also affirmed, the risk of lactic acidosis was not knowable in
Open Document