a. “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”
b. Paraphrase: Injuries can be prevented if people stop fighting against safety technology.
Claim: Wec has a permanent injury.
Claim: Bosch and others rejected and fought against safety technology.
c. WHAT TYPE OF CLAIM?
d. This claim is somewhat unreasonable, having a safer saw is not the only way that the Wec’s injury could have been prevented. Wec could have been more careful, but if his saw was safer his injury could have not happened. His claim is not 100% true about how his injury could have been prevented.
e. Wec should hold full responsibility for his saw injury, not the company. If he stayed careful he wouldn’t have got hurt.
a. “The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty, and product liability. ”
b. Claim: His injures from the saw are worth more than $30,000.
His injury is worth a lot of money due to Bosch table saw.
claim: Bosch neglects costumers.
The person’s injury is due to the fact that Bosch neglects their customers.
claim: There is a breach of warranty.
Claim: Bosch has product liability.
c. WHAT TYPE OF CLAIM IS BEING MADE?
d. This claim can be supportive, the injured person most likely had hospital bills, loss of work time and other expenses. However, the claim didn’t describe why the plaintiff is demanding so much money from the company. The claim is not persuasive, there is no information regarding how Bosch neglected the customer.
e. Injuries that are caused by the person using them are not the companies fault.
Personal Injury Lawyers