not really sure what your point at all is since negligence has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I do not believe the OP ever put forth a negligence argument either.
we are dealing with a product liability issue or an implied or express warranty and how either of them address consequential damages (since he was given a new phone or one acceptable to the OP as a replacement direct damages are not an issue).
That is an example of an argument regarding the facts speak for themselves. That is not a correct argument as we have said. That is the "point" and key to the "issue at hand". "Product liability" is not a cause of action. In California, a lawsuit like this would allege strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. The damages are small. The victim is not going to get the experts required to prosecute a case under strict liability. Proving a product is defective rather than proving the actual item is defective is expensive so strict liability is not going to be the cause. A breach of warranty is a problem for more than the phone because of your mention of consequential damages. That leaves negligence. The cause of action the victim would use on his complaint in this "situation" is negligence.
and in that, no claim of negligence, correct?Welfarelvr;745221]The victim said his phone caused a fire. He said he had no control over it because the battery is sealed inside. He did not give a reason why other than it was because of a product defect because phones are not supposed to do that.
and I disagree with your removal of other possibilities but I do not intend to argue this with you.
Negligence is a huge issue to prove and not even remotely suggested either by the OP or the facts of the situation. OP would have a much better chance of prevailing under just about any of the other theories
Proving a design defect or manufacturing defect would require an expert and Apple would have too much to lose if such a thing were proven. An expert is too expensive for the damages in the first place and litigation with Apple fighting like crazy would be too expensive in the second. That would assume there *was* such a defect.
I think it likely the warranty would be the best chance to prevail regarding phone replacement. A warranty is a contract. Consequential damages do not usually flow from a breach of contract. I think Apple's warranty would also specifically deny consequential damages in the text. The victim wants more than a replacement of the phone.
The forum seems to focus on discussion. Why bring up your disagreement if you do not want to discuss it?
the phone was already replaced and not an issue. All we have left is consequential damages. So since you do not believe product liability is a valid claim in California, I guess, especially since California address the issue of negligence, strict liability, express warranty, and implied warrranties under product liability, I guess OP has no claim at all.I think it likely the warranty would be the best chance to prevail regarding phone replacement.
Product liability is the umbrella which each of those four are under, even in California.
I know all we have left is consequential damages. That is why I eliminated the warranty issue from consideration.
The victim's claim would be in strict liability or negligence. He would not win in strict liability. I do not think he would win in negligence because of proof issues. Proof of breach and proof of damages and proof linking the breach to the damages. He does have a "claim". He probably does not have a successful one.
as a general claim, yes and that is supported by the civil rules of procedure:=Welfarelvr;745240]Do *you* believe "product liability" is a valid cause of action in California?
actually the warranty is the first place to look.I know all we have left is consequential damages. That is why I eliminated the warranty issue from consideration.
I changed the product liability part of the prior statement as I understood what you were saying now.
The warranty is a contract. Do people generally get consequential damages under breach of contract?
The warranty is Apple's warranty. Have you read one of those? Does it specifically exclude consequential damages?