Researching the Hopkins v. Dow Corning Appellate Cout opinion.

THIS IS A CLASSIC CIVIL BUSINESS ETHICS CASE.

This case involves Plaintiff Miriam Hopkins suing the company Defendant Dow Corning, Inc. for knowingly manufacturing and selling defective breast implants.The Dow case went to trial, and the jury found for the Plaintiff Hopkins and against the Dow Corning company. Hopkins was awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The case was then appealed by the Defendant Dow Corning to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit Court reviewed the trial outcome and damages awarded by the jury, and issued a written opinion that you will be reading as the basis of your analysis.

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING THREE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE HOPKINS v. DOW CORNING CASE:

(1) WHAT ARE 3 EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT PROVE DOW KNEW THE IMPLANTS WERE DEFECTIVE?

(2) HOW DID DOW TRY TO USE THE 1 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO DISMISS HOPKINS' LAWSUIT?;

(3) DO YOU AGREE WITH THE APPELLATE COURT'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE LOWER TRIAL COURT'S VERDICT IN FAVOR OF HOPKINS, INCLUDING THE PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD?