PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO RELIEF AGAINST THE SURE AND READY COMPANY FOR THEIR INJURIES AND DAMAGES UNDER THE NEW JERSEY PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT, N. J. S. A. 12:22-et. seq. DUE TO DEFECTIVE DESIGN OF THE TRAIN AND MECHANISMS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT. As stated in John J. Roberts v. Rich Foods, Inc , 139 N. J 365; A. 2d 1365 (1995), The New Jersey Products Liability Act of 1987 leaves intact three theories under which manufacture or seller may be held strictly liable for harm caused by product – defective manufacture, defective design, and defective warnings.
A claimant must provide proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the product causing the harm is not reasonably suitable or safe for its intended purpose. In Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co. , 76 N. J 152, 386 A. 2d 816 (1978) we recognize that a plaintiff seeking to establish the exception that asks how severely must the elimination of danger impair the usefulness of the product defense must prove that the defendant could have eliminated the danger without eliminating an inherent characteristic of the product.
POINT II DUE TO THE DEFECTIVE MANUFACTURE In the case O’Brien v. MuskinCorp. , 94 N. J 169, 463 A. 2d 298 (1983) in which it states “a product was defective, unfit for its intended purpose, if its risks outweighed its utility. ”
A manufacturing defect is a deviation from the design specifications, formulae, or performance standards of the manufacturer or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications or formulae. POINT III DUE TO INADEQUATE WARNINGS THE ENGINEER WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE TRAIN FROM ITS CONTINOUS DESTRUCTION.
In the case of Vonnie Cornett v. Johnson& Johnson.. 211 N. J 362; 48 A3. d 1041(2012) we recognize that as to claims grounded in the failure of the manufacturer to provide adequate warnings, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division has noted the Product Liability Act (PLA), N. J. S. A. § 2A:58C-4, defines an adequate product warning as one that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would have provided with respect to the danger and that communicates adequate information on the dangers and safe use of the product.
However, when the failure to warn claim implicates the label of or information provided with a medical device, the prospect of preemption of the state law PLA claim arises. The totality of an approval represents a specific federal requirement. POINT IV DUE TO STRICT LIABILITY AS THE CARGO WHICH WAS BEING HAULED WAS DANGEROUS AND UNABLE TO BE MADE SAFE. POINT V PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SURE AND READY TRAIN COMPANY.
PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNDER THE NEW JERSEY TORT CLAIMS ACT, N. J. S. A. 13:34-et. seq. CONCLUSION As per the law as stated above, the Court is compelled to grant plaintiffs relief against both defendants in this avoidable tragedy which killed and maimed hundreds of innocent people including children as well as causing property damage and business losses into the millions of dollars. Respectfully submitted,