[CLC-Discussion] Negligence: Standard of care: Proof: Qualitycontrol program

[Timothy R. Moorhead]

Interesting question that there is obviously no law on our you would not be
polling this group.  While my coffee cools I will chime in with my two cents
worth.

 

I think the answer is yes.  I would be looking to see what the QC program
actually entails and why the company has those particular elements in its QC
program.

 

For instance, there may be a published standard that a particular fabricated
item must have a certain thickness.  If it is a specially fabricated item,
then checking that thickness on a piece by piece basis may be reasonable
when if the item is s mass produced fungible item, testing one out of ever
batch of 1,000 might be reasonable.  Whether the 5 top producers test every
item or one in 1,000 would also seem relevant to the analysis.  So whether
your program tests for thickness and how often the sample is taken would
seem to indicate to me whether you are acting as reasonable producer of that
item.

In similar fashion, where there are no published standards for an item,
whether your QC program contains the same elements and the same rigor as the
other top 5 producers of the item would seem relevant.  For instance, my
paper coffee cup.  Assumng no published manufacturing guidelines or
specifications.  Does the industry of coffee cup manufacturers test their
design to ensure stability in the design so that I don't knock the cup over
easily?  Does the industry check for heat transmission through the body of
the cup to assure tha I don't burn my hand picking it up?  Do they test the
glue in the bottom of the cup to assure that the lava hot liquid inside does
not dissolve the glue and send the molten mess across my desk or to other
areas that we will not discuss?  IF the top 5 producers test for these
items, wouldn't the question of whether brand X tests for those same things
be relevant?

 

You get my drift.  My coffee has now cooled.  I apologize for rambling, but
I really needed that 1st cup before sitting down to my email.

 

Sorry.

 

 

Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.

Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.

505 Maitland Avenue

Suite 1000

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

(407) 425-0234

(407) 425-0260 (fax)

Board Certified in Construction Law

tmoorhead at wfmblaw.com

www.wfmblaw.com

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments
accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the
sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information
is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this
transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error,
please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all
copies of the transmission.

 

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:  To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S.
Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless otherwise
expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this communication has
neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the use of
any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed pursuant to U.S. law.  Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this communication has
neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose
of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should
seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent
tax advisor.

 

Replies Filtered:  Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other
e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or
"viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail
communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at
our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot
guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to
us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you
should consider sending communications to us which are particularly
important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

 

 

  _____  

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Richard
A. Burt
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:21 PM
To: 'clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Negligence: Standard of care: Proof:
Qualitycontrol program

 

Everyone, 

I would like any thoughts you may have regarding the following related
issues: 

(i)     Is a defendant's own quality control program admissible to prove the
standard of care in a negligence case brought against him? 

(ii)   Is the failure of a defendant to follow his own quality control
program admissible to prove his negligence (i.e., violation of the standard
of care)?

I will greatly appreciate any comment and/or legal authority you may have as
to these issues.

Thanks!

Dick

Richard A. Burt, Esq.

BURT & BURT

420 S. Orange Ave., Suite 220

Orlando, FL  32801

(386) 252-2090 (office)

(866) 240-7043 (facsimile) 

dick at burt-burt.com

www.burt-burt.com <http://www.burt-burt.com/> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140116/be837940/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20140116/be837940/image002.jpg>