Case 6.5 Failure To Warn

6.5 Failure to Warn
Was Taser negligent in failing to warn the police of the dangers of discharging the Taser X26 at a suspect’s chest? Yes, because the police officer used the Taser as he had been trained and in compliance with the manual to subdue Darryl Wayne Turner, who refused to comply with the officer directives. The police officer hit Tuner near the chest because he thought the amperage of the Taser wouldn’t cause permanent injury to Turner. Thus, Turner’s mother, Tammy Lou Fontenot cam sued for product liability to failure to warn because the manufacture (Taser International, Inc.) owe a duty to warn the users the “police officers” about the dangers of using this product. Therefore, the Taser International, Inc., is strict liable for failure to warn due to the failure of not warning the police that the X26 Taser cause a ventricular fibrillation of cardiac arrest when the Taser’s electrical hit proximity to the heart.
7.1 Patent
Is the Claimed invention patentable?
Claim 1, stated that it describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk; this claim does not meet the novel requirement to be patentable because in the energy market there are many method and same instructing used in the past to hedge risk. In the same way, claim 4 do not meet the useful requirement for obtaining a patent because articulated into a mathematical formula, which means that the invention has only theoretical benefit and no useful purpose. For this reason, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw patent application was rejected by the (PTO), due to that it manipulates an abstract idea, and solves a purely mathematical problem. In all, this claimed invention about how to hedge in against the risk of prices changes are not important to the national economy or national