gathering the dispositions,

 gathering the dispositions,

The first thing in working this case would get some statements under oath from any witnesses’ who were present when the accident occurred or if they have any relevant testimony. These statements under oath would be dispositions while taking these statements opposing lawyers are required to be present to cross-examine the witness. During this disposition, I would question the witness on the circumstances they may have observed, causing the plaintiff to become injured. The critical witness, though, would be an expert witness. Testimony from an expert witness could be the determining factor in the outcome of the trial. The expert witness would more than likely be a quality assurance expert who could state that after careful examination of the shoe, no defect in the shoe could cause such an injury.

Following gathering the dispositions, a request for documents would be completed. Every potential witness and the plaintiff’s criminal records would be requested. Anything that could bring the character of either the plaintiff or witness’ into question could completely invalidate their testimony. Next would also be a request for the medical records of the plaintiff. These records could be reviewed by a doctor who could testify that the injury is inconsistent with damage that would have occurred because of a shoe defect. This, of course, would only be useful if that is true.

Additionally, in the medical records there could be a previous injury that was easily aggravated which caused this new injury and the argument could be made that this contributed to the injury not a defect in the shoes. Other essential documents would be a proof of purchase. Was the product purchased from an authorized seller or were the shoes potentially purchased second hand? The shoes were purchased from an authorized dealer could bring into question if the shoes are authentic or if they are counterfeit shoes that were not made by the company I am representing but instead by another company making shoes to look like my companies’ shoes. Also, if the shoes were purchased second hand, they could be overused and worn out to a point where they are no longer useable and should have been discarded, this could also apply if the shoes were purchased quite a while ago the shoes have been owned long enough that they would be worn out beyond use.

After gathering all the information necessary for a trial, my team and I will decide if it is cost-effective to continue to trial. If there is potential that it may be found that our shoe is found to be at fault or if offering to settle with the plaintiff out of court is more cost-effective, our team may make an offer to the plaintiff to keep the trial from going to court. This settlement outside of court is no admission of guilt by the shoe company, but it is just more cost-effective to settle the lawsuit rather than spend the resources like time and money worrying about the lawsuit and dealing with it.

The case involves a complaint that claims to have broken their ankle while walking in a shoe manufactured by the company. The complainant has the right to present his/her grievances based on the quality manufacture of the show that was purchased and caused a severe injury to his/her uncle. As an attorney, it is crucial first to gather proof the shoes were defective before deciding on what discovery measures to take, and this also determines whether the issue would have been settled without litigation claim. The plaintiff is entitled to damages on given assessment on the following grounds:

Product liability cases are not the same as other individual damage case sorts. In blemished product cases, the casualty, for the most part, does not need to demonstrate carelessness. The first confirmation required is the verification of harm and evidence of the product’s imperfection. This is known as strict liability. Once the damage is reported and the deformity set up, the casualty has met their weight of verification. The burden then moves to the producer to demonstrate the product wasn’t blemished.