Manufacturer’s Duty of Care
Manufacturers have a duty of care to produce products in such a way as to “prevent injury or damage arising as the result of a fault or failure of their products” (US Legal Definations.com). When any individual sustains an injury which can be proven to be caused by a defect in the design or manufacturing processes of a product, making that product dangerous under normal use, the injured party can recover damages from the manufacturer. Often this recovery can occur without proof of negligence on the part of the manufacturer, provided that the injury was not incurred through the direct fault of the user or misuse of the product. During typical products liability litigation, the plaintiff must show that the offending …show more content…
The legal definition of the term criminal negligence is “the failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner” (Legal Dictionary) and in at least the Ford case, the company was aware of the dangers surrounding their product and of the potential risk for loss of life of Pinto occupants who were involved in a rear end collision. These examples would seemingly fit the literal definition of criminal negligence, especially when one considers that the companies involved not only knew of the defects in their products, but also of the potential for injury due to those defects. Further, in each case, these companies had investigated possible solutions to the issues surrounding their products, and finally, made the decisions to continue to market these harmful products based on a cost/benefit analysis. There remains a question of, should a corporate defendant be subjected to criminal charges of reckless disregard and criminal intention in cases such as these, and if so, who should be charged? To the outside observer, it seems to be perfectly logical to assume that someone in the organization, perhaps a manager or higher level executive, not only knew about these defects, but authorized the product’s release despite the inherent dangers however, proving who that person is or was, as well as their culpability in the release of the product might ultimately be too difficult, resulting in rare prosecutions due to the complex nature and expense of these types of cases. Still, the question remains, should no one be held personally accountable for their role in another’s death? Unfortunately, most past proposals to criminalize product liability have met with stiff
Manufacturers have a duty of care to produce products in such a way as to “prevent injury or damage arising as the result of a fault or failure of their products” (US Legal Definations.com). When any individual sustains an injury which can be proven to be caused by a defect in the design or manufacturing processes of a product, making that product dangerous under normal use, the injured party can recover damages from the manufacturer. Often this recovery can occur without proof of negligence on the part of the manufacturer, provided that the injury was not incurred through the direct fault of the user or misuse of the product. During typical products liability litigation, the plaintiff must show that the offending …show more content…
The legal definition of the term criminal negligence is “the failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner” (Legal Dictionary) and in at least the Ford case, the company was aware of the dangers surrounding their product and of the potential risk for loss of life of Pinto occupants who were involved in a rear end collision. These examples would seemingly fit the literal definition of criminal negligence, especially when one considers that the companies involved not only knew of the defects in their products, but also of the potential for injury due to those defects. Further, in each case, these companies had investigated possible solutions to the issues surrounding their products, and finally, made the decisions to continue to market these harmful products based on a cost/benefit analysis. There remains a question of, should a corporate defendant be subjected to criminal charges of reckless disregard and criminal intention in cases such as these, and if so, who should be charged? To the outside observer, it seems to be perfectly logical to assume that someone in the organization, perhaps a manager or higher level executive, not only knew about these defects, but authorized the product’s release despite the inherent dangers however, proving who that person is or was, as well as their culpability in the release of the product might ultimately be too difficult, resulting in rare prosecutions due to the complex nature and expense of these types of cases. Still, the question remains, should no one be held personally accountable for their role in another’s death? Unfortunately, most past proposals to criminalize product liability have met with stiff