Product Liability This week's question concerns liability and moral responsibility in consumer products. As the question is multi-part, the answer will be likewise. To begin, the first question addresses who should be liable for the voluntary actions of others. Specifically, if substantial information concerning the hazards of a product or service has been offered to the consumer, who is to blame if someone is injured? Similar to most questions derived from this course, the answer is "it depends." From a legal standpoint, the contract or arrangement must first be analyzed. If, for example, the activity is a high risk activity such as sky diving or feeding sharks on a scuba dive, then the legal concept of "duty of care" obviously plays a major role. Without sufficient training, education, and discussion of the inherent risks, potential problems, and possible results of mishaps, the seller is not fulfilling his or her duty warn the buyer of known risks or hazards. In this case, the seller would be legally required to warn the buyer that a failure to exercise reasonable care poses an unreasonable risk of harm (McCarty, 279). If the buyer has been properly apprised of the level of care necessary to avoid unreasonable risk, the buyer then assumes the risk, and subsequent liability, should tragedy occur. This is due to the "Assumption of Risk" liability defense that states that if the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the risk inherent in a particular situation and voluntarily assumes that risk, then the defendant is not liable for the plaintiff's injury even if the defendant was negligent. In this case, if the sky diving company requires 4 hours of classroom training before the first jump to thoroughly cover the risks ... ... middle of paper ... ...lly putting the consumer in the presence of a known hazard. The ethics of virtue would also caution against issuing an unsafe product. Dishonesty, malice, and greed, generally acknowledged as vices, lend to less admirable behaviors such as withholding safety information, placing innocent consumers in harm's path, and taking shortcuts on quality or safety. The character of a manager who allows this behavior is damaged. Therefore, issuing a defective product to consumers would violate the ethics of virtue. Finally, the rights of the consumers are violated when a manufacturer sells an unsafe product. Specifically, the freedom of choice is revoked, as the buyer is not freely choosing to accept the product. Without full disclosure, the buyer cannot make an informed decision, and subsequently is not freely choosing to engage in the agreement to purchase the product.
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
For M2, I will analyse how consumers are protected in breach of contract of law for supply and sales of good or service by legislation like Sales of Good act 1979 which imposes responsibility to the seller to make sure products are good quality. Also, I will be explaining the limitation of this legislation in protecting customers from defected products.
Corporations are neither as perfect or put together as portrayed by some, nor as evil as portrayed by others. They are simply the economic units in our society that are necessary to supply the goods and services we need. We don’t want to go back to walking down the road hoping, someone had cheap good in their cart do we? No better means to serve this purpose has yet been found. While corporations obviously would prefer to market safe products rather than unsafe ones, they feel justified in asking why they should voluntarily increase the safety of a product if the result is that sales suffer. The provision of safety belts in autos is a good example.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
We may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such
Negligence can be defined as any conduct that is ‘careless or unintentional in nature and entails a breach of any contractual duty or duty of care in tort owed to another person or persons’.(Godsell, 1993 P23)
The quality, the happiness, the good thing that you can give the consumer is the end, your sense of duty to do these things is the means. Looking at things from this perspective, Fords actions were unethical. The Kantian idea causes me believe that Ford should have put the potentially life-saving part into the Pinto, not because they have a moral obligation to produce safe vehicles, or because they want praise for looking out for the safety and well-being of their consumers, but because it’s the right thing to do. Clearly, Ford didn’t do that. Based on the case study and the information presented, they allowed financial data and projections to dictate the decision, whether morally right or
Liability for negligence is a civil matter. In liability negligence, the victim has to be able to prove that the defendant has legal obligations, and the obligations was breached, and that they have received foreseeable harm as a consequence of the negligence alleged. If the victim can prove that there was a breach of a legal obligation then he/she will be awarded damages based on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
...rights. In the United States, consumers have the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, the right to be heard, and the right to privacy. These two companies violated two of these rights. They violated the consumer's right to safety by selling cars and tires that were not safe and they also violated the consumers' right to be informed.
The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.
Why is the reporting required? The intent of Congress was to encourage widespread reporting of potential product hazards. Congress sought not only to have the Commission uncover substantial product hazards, but also to identify risks of injury which the Commission could attempt to prevent through its own efforts, such as information and education programs, safety labeling, and adoption of product safety standards. Although CPSC relies on sources other than company reports to identify substantial product hazards, reporting by companies is invaluable because firms often learn of product safety problems long before the Commission does. For this reason, any company involved in the manufacture, importation, distribution or sale of consumer products should develop a system of reviewing and maintaining consumer complaints, inquiries, product liability suits and comments on the products they handle.
Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)