Johnson vs Coldrock Tire and

Hello, I am working on a university project where we have a case in court and I need 20 questions to ask the jury, below I am attaching what the case is about and the profile of all the jurors.

Case: Johnson vs. Coldrock Tire and Rubber Company
In March 2016, John “Johnny” Johnson, a mechanic employed by Infiniti of Parkland,
attempted to mount a 16-inch tire on a 17-inch rim of an Infiniti G35 wheel. While
installing the tire, he leaned and reached over the assembly and the tire exploded,
causing him serious, permanent injuries. Mr. Johnson lost three fingers of his right hand
in the accident, as well as the vision in his right eye. In addition to his job at the dealership, Mr. Johnson was an aspiring reggae musician who the day of the accident had received a multi-million dollar record contract offer from Tinseltown Records. Mr.
Johnson filed suit in Florida’s 17th Judicial Circuit Court against his employer, American
Hawk Company– the manufacturer of the wheel, Nissan Motor Company – the
manufacturer of the automobile and designer of the wheel, and Coldrock Tire and
Rubber Company – the manufacturer of the tire. Mr. Johnson had 10 years of experience as a mechanic and had received three days of on-site training from representatives of Coldrock. The dealership, wheel manufacturer, and automobile
manufacturer all settled, leaving Coldrock as the remaining defendant.
This is a civil tort case and not a criminal one. Causes of actions will consist of claims
for
1. Negligence, and
2. (Strict) product liability
An issue in the case is the labeling on the tire. The tire had a label, advising users never
to mount a 16-inch tire on a 17-inch rim, warning of the danger of severe injury or death,
and included a drawing of a mechanic leaning over the tire to install it with a circle and
the red line is drawn through it. Whether the label was sufficiently conspicuous or adequately depicted the resulting danger or risk of injury, remains an open issue. In depositions,
Johnson admitted that he ignored these warnings at the urging of his employer, especially
because it was common practice to install smaller tires on larger rims of the Infiniti G35.
During discovery, Johnson’s attorneys explored why Coldrock did not use a safer “bead”
design. The bead is a rubber encased steel wire, which circles the tire and holds it on to
the rim. Each side has offered up experts, with Johnson’s pointing out that other
manufacturers use different and safer bead designs and Coldrock’s arguing that the
Coldrock design was the safest in the industry, and a different design would not have
changed the outcome.
The defendant in the case is Roger “Cole” Coldrock, CEO of the company, who is being represented by the Wall Street firm of Ben, Jarvis, Green & Ellis, LLP. The plaintiff is being represented by the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe, LLP, a specialist in product liability suits. The assigned judge in the case is the Hon. Solomon Cardozo
Holmes, a recent appointee by the Republican governor. Before his appointment, Judge
Holmes was in private practice with a large Fort Lauderdale firm; his major client was
General Motors.

Johnson vs Coldrock Tire and

I’m working on a law case study and need support to help me learn.

The Project is About a Lawsuit, Where I am the Plaintiff and I   Need to:

1-Summarize the legal strategy (Meaning what are you trying   to prove in this courtroom?) you have to summarize the legal strategy that wem are use in the court.

2-How do you plan to achieve this goal? (Meaning win the case)

This is the case is about, any questions let me know.

This is a civil case because it involves an individual suing an organization or a business. A civil case can be instituted by a private individual, a business entity, or a government can sue an organization or an individual. The case also qualifies for consideration as civil because all involved did not break particular laws or commit criminal activity. Lastly, this is an equitable claim civil case because the plaintiff presents various claims against the defendant.

The client in this scenario is John “Johnny” Johnson, a mechanic working at Infiniti of Parkland. He is currently represented by a law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, LLP. Based on this type of civil law case, the client or plaintiff can also be referred to as the claimant because he institutes a claim against the defendant. This client is chosen based on the facts arising from the case scenario; for example, the defendant’s decision to ineffectively label the tire potentially caused the explosion. Also, the plaintiff’s employer assumed that because it was a commonality to install smaller tires on larger rims of the Infiniti G35. This was a cause of neglect by the defendant and Johnson’s employer, who argued against the user directions indicated on the tire.

Johnson is suing Coldrock Tire and Rubber Company, the designer of the wheel in question. However, the plaintiff will sue the company through its chief executive, Roger “Cole” Coldrock. The defendant is represented by the Wall Street firm of Ben, Jarvis, Green & Ellis, LLP. The legal proceeding is founded on the point that the defendant failed to label the tire explicitly. Also, the plaintiff claims that the label was not sufficiently conspicuous or effectively depicted, resulting in the risks and danger witnessed in the scenario.

To establish and substantiate a prima facie civil case ground, the plaintiff, Johnson, will be required to provide adequate submissions substantiating how the defendant indicated negligence that caused harm before requesting the court to offer relief. The set of actions that warrant the grounds for this case include severe permanent injuries caused by the tire’s explosion. The plaintiff sustained injuries; he lost three fingers on his right hand and a permanent vision loss in his right eye. Therefore, the elements to help argue the negligence cause of action, the plaintiff will have to prove or defend breach, harm, duty, and causation. The set of facts presented in the case indicates that Infiniti of Parkland’s manager failed in his duty, Coldrock Tire and Rubber Company breached the user-wellness expectation, the plaintiff suffered harm, and Coldrock Tire and Rubber Company’s product caused harm.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount