BUS FPX 2021 Assessment 3 Case Analysis Tort Law

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper

Write My Essay For Me

• BUS FPX 2021 Assessment 3 Case Analysis Tort Law.

Assessment 03: Summary of the Case

Capella University

BUS-FPX2021 

Instructor Name

Due Date

To: Executive Team, Snap Inc.

From: Senior Manager

Date: March 5, 2025

Subject: Court Decision Impact Analysis – Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (995 F.3d 1085, 2021)

Summary of the Case: Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (995 F.3d 1085, 2021)

The shape includes the mother and father of Hunter Morby and Landen Brown, suing the producer of Snapchat, Snap, Inc. The plaintiffs claimed that Snapchat’s pace clean-out characteristic, through which customers need to file and motion in real time, was once primary to negligent driving (Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 2021). They’re claiming a negligent graph with the beneficial, valuable resource of this structure of feature that prompted wrongful loss of life of their sons in an excessive-pace twist of the future.

Hunter Morby (17), Landen Brown (20), and Jason Davis (17) have been cruising down Walworth County, Wisconsin, on the twenty-eighth of August 2017. Jason was once driving, Landen was with him in the car, and Hunter was a backseat passenger in the vehicle. The three died after crashing the auto properly right into a tree after reaching the speed of 123 MPH and then falling to 113 MPH. Landen took a picture with Snapchat’s face filter in advance of the twist of fate. It’s far from the argument of the plaintiffs that clients’ idea that they have been rewarded in-app once they drove fast. Snap did not flip off or restrict the function even after preceding injuries, public outrage, and court cases filed. Plaintiffs had formerly sued Snap for negligence in 2019, which was quickly brushed off by the district court on the idea that section 230(c)(1) of the CDA invited Snap to invoke immunity.

The 9th Circuit reversed this ruling on attraction and held that Snap had not been sued on a precept of publishing 1/three-birthday party content but on product sketch (Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 2021). The case used to be remanded for lawsuits, a critical precedent that tech corporations may be held accountable for defects in product sketches. Still, they are immune under Section 230 for user-posted content. Explore BUS FPX 2021 Assessment 2 Comprehensive Case Fact Summary for more information.

Relevant Torts and Elements

The number one tort in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. is a negligent diagram, a tort of the product. The four elements to prove negligence are obligation, breach, causation, and damages. Dad and Mom contend that Snap owed an obligation to render the product impenetrable; however, a synthetic, easy-out feature so that it will power with abandon. For previous crashes and protests, Snap allegedly won’t delete or exclude the function, which might be a breach of responsibility. It includes detathe ils that ththat thentiffsd to establish that the proximate cause of the crash the defendant’s reckless speeding (Lisea, 2023). The damage is a nonsensical lack of life for the younger guys. Snap had contended that section 230(c)(1) of the CDA protects it from criminal responsibility.

The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled that the case no longer equates Snap to a third-party author of material but as an opportunity for a style fashion designer of the product Snap. Due to the truth, the case is one among plan preferences competition with Snapchat and no longer one on consumer-generated content; the courtroom did not preserve its immunity to Snapchat (Lisea, 2023). The ruling guarantees that technology behemoths are accountable for their negligent graph of merchandise despite the fact that they offer locations for person-generated content on their website. The district courtroom, in a matter of days, is probably pressured to preserve that Snap’s design contributed to the twist of destiny in a few techniques, and whose regulation applies — California’s or Wisconsin’s?

Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzed

The plaintiffs allege that Snap designed Snapchat negligently by adopting the price easy out and praise software that advocated drivers to, in effect, stress negligently. The lawsuit is warranted owing to the fact that manufacturers of merchandise have a responsibility to provide impenetrable designs. They cite preceding crashes, outrage in the public, and Snap no longer doing a minor detail while warning signs and symptoms have been obtrusive as proof that the company ought to or did understand approximately dangers (Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 2023).

BUS FPX 2021 Assessment 3 Case Analysis Tort Law

Their complaint, then, is a diagram of merchandise and no longer of clients’ content material, and so no longer like CDA-covered controversies. One danger of plaintiffs’ claims, even though they include causation, is the power of will. Even though they are to plead that the charge clean out used to be once the purpose of speeding, Snap can plead that rushing used to be once an impartial motion on the issue of using stress. The defense can plead that a man or woman’s fault was as great a burden in the twist of the future. Snap’s safety is primarily based on section 230 of the CDA, which shields internet agencies from criminal responsibility for the acts of others.

This is legally predicated on how courts used to interpret the CDA. The ninth CiNinth held that the form was no longer a product graph and, as a result, not content-cloth moderation; hence, it wasn’t CDA-protected. Besides this exception, Snap will need to plead that its sketch wasn’t the motive-in-truth of the crash. The case will boost the current trouble of platform prison obligation over product protection.

Court’s Ruling and Rationale

The Ninth Circuit used to as soon as possible as of the view that Snap is out of doors the scope of phase 230 of the CDA by the truth that the plaintiff’s complaint isn’t approximately Snap as a speaker or transmitter of some different man or woman’s content material material. as an opportunity, the courtroom docket was as soon as once aided through the method of Snap’s product layout – the charge clean out and incentive gadget that has been selling volatile using (Larkin & Pyrinis, 2021). Due to the reality that the complaint is based mainly on the fact that the product has been designed using the Snap approach, immunity under CDA isn’t always achieved.

The selection places Phase 230’s parameters on a stronger floor, all over again emphasizing the component that era groups are the owners in their preference of plan if the choice of plan affects foreseeable damage. The court docket differentiated the case from preceding precedents wherein section 230 had already been invoked due to the fact that Snap’s negligence isn’t always based on user-submitted content. The ruling has implications for destiny instances concerning platform duty as well. It indicates that companies aren’t shielded under section 230 on the occasion that they were brought to court for claiming their merchandise is defective in manufacture or risky (Larkin & Pyrinis, 2021). It will additionally state the social media functions that facilitate offensive behavior to a closer examination. In the ruling, the court leaves open the query of causation for the examine-on-court instances. In the long run, the case cautions against accepting the notion that era organizations have to be held responsible for the externalities created through using their design alternatives.

Industry Impact and Application 

The 9th Circuit’s Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. ruling has some far-reaching ramifications for social media and generation organizations. Snap was no longer exempt under CDA phase 230, ruled the courtroom docket. The case involved Snap’s product plan and not a 1/3-birthday celebration content. It is a sketch regarding which companies may be held liable if design-time preferences cause foreseeable harm, though the website is compelled to host customer-generated content.

In our social media organization, this situation is a reminder to live vigilantly about probable objections to risks in terms of interactive capability. Interactive factors of the kind that invite unstable conduct, i.e., gamification functions, speedy filters, or sharing one’s place, need to be carefully scrutinized (Meshi et al., 2020). For instance, if we have a feature that is problem-primarily based and has the requirement that volunteers want to make contributions to it, then we want to ensure that it is not used to encourage volatile operations.

BUS FPX 2021 Assessment 3 Case Analysis Tort Law

To ensure it’s miles apt for this form of prison problem, we want to encompass intrinsic safety features, i.e., preventing risky operations at unique risky operations with caution messages, and actively tracking abuse. Secondly, apart from the health raised, there must be incredible hazard assessment and consumer education alongside our internal innovation method (Kapusy & Lógó, 2022). The case factors toward the doctrine to which courts will maintain a business employer business enterprise chargeable for negligent design with the beneficial, valuable resource of the usage of utilizing the doctrine of proactive protection in an attempt to avoid criminal and recognition loss.

Conclusion

Ninth Circuit in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. held that the temp employee is liable for negligent plan criminal duty since it brought about reckless driving. The case is strong in the view that the selection of product format is an era of organizations; however, the fact that their website is used to include person-generated content. Segment 230 immunity is installed in any other case in this desire because it specializes in taking protection measures in interactive content. It additionally holds that the plan wants to be anticipatory lest it do harm or judicial miscarriage.

References

• https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804620962270
• https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/lemmon-v-snap-inc-ninth-circuit-chips-away-at-tech-companies-section-230-immunity
• https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6983497523645535721&q=tort+case+involving+negligence+or+product+liability
• https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol50/iss4/3/
• https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=585729052128493732&q=Maynard+v.+Snapchat
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100294