Every consumer wants to ensure they are buying products they can trust and fulfill its purpose. Often that is the case, but there are occasions when products are deemed unsafe to consumers, therefore, they are recalled. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is the agency “charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction” (Seaquist, 2012, p. 131). Many products from car seats to baby toys fail the national safety standards each year. The purpose of the U.S. Commission Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is to product consumers from products that may be of harm. “From 2008-2010, the United States Consumer
…show more content…
8.1). When companies have to recall a product, their reputation and brand usually suffer as consumers refrain from purchasing products, which results in a loss for the company. Depending on the size of the company, many cannot recuperate from a recall; therefore, closing the business can occur. When unsafe products have a chance of harming individuals, liability questions are certain to arise. Furthermore, “manufacturers do not have to warn consumers about a product unless the manufacturer “knew or should have known” the product was dangerous to use or would be used in a dangerous manner by the customer” (Seaquist, 2012). Therefore, consumers need to be aware that if a product is deemed dangerous, the manufacturer does not necessarily hold product …show more content…
The Manhattan toy companies have fallen below the standard production, which resulted in a recall, therefore, they have a breach of duty. Nonetheless, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to say there was a risk of harm. “The harm must be reasonably foreseeable” (Tingle, 2002). “Any objects on the baby-rattle breaking and choking a small child may be the actual cause of a defective product” (Seaquist, 2012). When considering actual causation, one has to keep in mind if the product actually caused harm or injuries to an individual. In the case of the Manhattan Company, no casualties or harm were reported. The only way a lawsuit will be successful is if the plaintiff can prove harm was actually
8.1). When companies have to recall a product, their reputation and brand usually suffer as consumers refrain from purchasing products, which results in a loss for the company. Depending on the size of the company, many cannot recuperate from a recall; therefore, closing the business can occur. When unsafe products have a chance of harming individuals, liability questions are certain to arise. Furthermore, “manufacturers do not have to warn consumers about a product unless the manufacturer “knew or should have known” the product was dangerous to use or would be used in a dangerous manner by the customer” (Seaquist, 2012). Therefore, consumers need to be aware that if a product is deemed dangerous, the manufacturer does not necessarily hold product …show more content…
The Manhattan toy companies have fallen below the standard production, which resulted in a recall, therefore, they have a breach of duty. Nonetheless, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to say there was a risk of harm. “The harm must be reasonably foreseeable” (Tingle, 2002). “Any objects on the baby-rattle breaking and choking a small child may be the actual cause of a defective product” (Seaquist, 2012). When considering actual causation, one has to keep in mind if the product actually caused harm or injuries to an individual. In the case of the Manhattan Company, no casualties or harm were reported. The only way a lawsuit will be successful is if the plaintiff can prove harm was actually