Factors Associate with an Ikea Product Recall

Negligent Tort:
The Consumer Product Safety Committee was mandated with the responsibility of safeguarding the public from unreasonable risks of harm or death linked with the use of various types of products under the agency’s jurisdiction. In case of violation of a mandatory regulation, the agency usually issues a Letter of Advice regarding the infringement and the nature of appropriate corrective action. The violation is also accompanied by a product recall by the respective company and liability for negligence for any injury or death from using the product. Some of the major aspects under consideration during a product recall include duty of care, actual causation, standard of care, proximate causation, breach of the duty of care, actual injury, and defenses to negligence.
Product Recall:
An example of a recent product recall is the decision by IKEA to recall children’s bed canopies because of the risk of strangulation. These bed canopies are manufactured from mesh fabric and hang from the ceiling onto children’s bed or crib (“IKEA Recalls Children’s Bed Canopies”, 2014). These products measure nearly 7ft. long and approximately 2 ft. in diameter. Moreover, the canopy’s name is usually printed on the laundry instructions label fixed on the edge of the fabric through sewing. Generally, IKEA is renowned for manufacturing a wide range of high-quality and colorful children’s bed canopies at affordable prices.
The recall of IKEA children’s canopies was primarily influenced by the risk of strangulation and recent cases of injuries associated with their use. In the past few months, there have been at least nine reports of children getting tangled in bed canopies across the globe. One of these incidents involved a 7-month-o...

... middle of paper ...

.... failure to warn consumers.
In conclusion, IKEA recent recall of children’s bed canopies is an example of a product recall incident attributed to the probable injury that a product can cause on consumers. This recall was brought by recent reports of its potential injuries including the case of the 7-month-old baby in the U.S. who pulled the canopy and wrapped it around her neck several times. The company liability for negligence is based on defects on marketing i.e. its failure to warn customers of the dangers associated with using the product. As a result, the company would be liable for pure comparative negligence in which the plaintiff is entitled to recover or compensation regardless of his/her extent of negligence while using the product. The most appropriate consumer protection statute that applies to the incident is the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.