Consumer product safety - Research Paper Example

? Consumer product safety of An importer or a producer initiates recalls after noticing that the manufactured goods are or may have a safety concern. Consumer product safety division is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from numerous kinds of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. In addition, it ensures the effectual and proficient removal of perilous products from the souk (Consumer Product Safety division). This study intends to consider the recall of Pampered Chef Garlic Slicer. The pampered Chef- Canada sets this product. It is manufactured in China. The garlic slicer is cylindrical in shape and but it can cut chocolate baking squares into hard cheese and nuts. The recalled products include model numbers 1113 and 2578. The hazard identified in this instrument is that, the slicer blade attached to the base of the slicer can extricate and separate, posing a prospective cut hazard to consumers. So far, the Pampered Chef-Canada has received two incidents of the blade extricating and separating from the slicer with no consequential injuries. More over, Health Canada has not received reports of injuries or incidents to Canadians related to the garlic slicers (Consumer Product Safety division). It is estimated that approximately, 12,587 pieces have been sold in Canada through the independent consultants selling pampered Chef Products online. This study reveals that, the recalled pieces were sold as from January 2009 to July 2011. Consider the following image of the garlic slicer manufactured in China. Courtesy of Www. U.S._Consumer_Product_Safety_Commission It is noticeable that, the garlic slicer blade pose a potential laceration hazard incase it dislodges and separates if the product is allowed to be remain in the market without recalling it is likely to cause adverse injuries to users (Consumer Product Safety division). Since this is a manufacturer’s oversight, it implies it follows that, the manufacturers is liable for negligence and will be compelled to recompense. This aspect is well explained on the attributable concepts, which include, duty care, standard of care, breach of duty of care, actual causation, proximate causation, actual injury and defense of negligence Duty of care and breach of duty care This is a legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid omission, which can be, reasonably foreseen consequently causing harm to others. In this context, the duty of care of manufacturers of garlic slicer is fundamental to avoid potential risks to users. In actual sense, manufacturers have a responsibility of care to prevent damage or injury arising from failure or fault of their products (Consumer Product Safety division). It is noteworthy that, the model of the duty of care should be proved before proceeding with an action in negligence. Conversely, an individual who without any element of personal fault sustains an injury caused by a defect in the design or manufacture of a product rendering it unreasonably dangerous to normal use, may recover from the product’s manufacturer without proof of negligence. Standard of care This refers to manufacturer’s obligation of ensuring proper description of product usage. It involves a provision of proper usage guidelines and associated cautions (Consumer Product Safety division). This may include package inserts, which describes all forms of information related to the prescribing data. The package inserts refers to the specific product information, which includes the medication itself. It is worth noting that, the product inserts do not define the standard of care for the use of the prescription medications however, the key concern is how the courts rule on the matter. The fundamental aspects attributed to the insert information include the possibility of establishing the applicable standard of care, which can be used as evidence in the determination of the applicable standard of care. In addition, whether this information can be used to in the cross examination of a witness (Consumer Product Safety division). In principle, the courts have ruled that the package insert is not prima facie evidence of the applicable standard of care. In this context, it is advisable for the prescribing physicians or manufacturers to be cautious on the situations in which they give usage instructions on products. Actual Causative Refers to a cause or factor without which the event could not have occurred. It can be termed as a factual cause. Proximate cause This is cause is an event sufficiently related to a lawfully decipherable injury to be held to be the root of that injury. Two kinds of causation in the law exist. They include cause-in-fact and proximate cause. The “but for test” is applied in the determination of the cause-in-fact. This test will be used to establish the proximate cause of injury to users of garlic slicers (Consumer Product Safety division). The manufacturers will remain susceptible to the application of the law upon the realization of the proximate cause. It is imperative to note that, an act to cause harm must meet both tests. The proximate cause is principally the legal limitation on the cause-in- fact. However, there are some instances where the “but for test” is ineffective, they include concurrent causes, sufficient combined and market share evidence (Consumer Product Safety division). In this context, market share evidence tends to put the manufacturers in a complicated position incase of an injury or damage to users. Market share evidence refers to a situation whereby a product made by all the manufacturers are joined together in a lawsuit particularly when the hazard is because of design with each having been established to have sold the same brand of product in a manner that made it irrationally hazardous. Defense of negligence A allege in neglect is based on the supposition that the producer owes a duty of care to all those who can reasonably be anticipated to make use of its product. However, there exist limitations of liability negligence, which acts a defense to the manufacturers since they might restrict its efficiency in product liability. These limitations include, the injured party may not depend on the principle of ‘‘res ipsa loquitur’’. This implies that no explanation other than negligence can be the case (Consumer Product Safety division). It is worth to note that, if this is the situation, the manufacturers can take up the task of proving that indeed reasonable care was considered in establishing a secure scheme of manufacture and quality control to avoid defects. In addition, if the manufacturer indicates how the defect occurred, then it becomes a strong defense against negligence (Consumer Product Safety division). More over, the injured party need to establish a causal connector between the defendant’s negligence and the injury caused. It is significant to note that, the action is vital in a common law negligence, which the manufacturer will find easy to rely on any of the normal defenses available in tort. Consumer protection statute Consumer protection statute refers to the laws that regulate relationships between individual consumers and manufacturers. This study examines the product liability statute. This statute governs the liability of the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributor and vendors for damages caused by faulty products (Consumer Product Safety division). The fundamental role of the product liability statute is to enhance consumer protection from dangerous products. This law holds the manufacturers, wholesalers and vendors responsible for such product faultiness. In conclusion, manufactures have a fundamental role in ensuring the consumer safety is assured. However, restriction on negligence actions implies that, while damages may be recompensed for individual damages or injuries caused, damages will not be awarded for economic losses. References Www. U.S._Consumer_Product_Safety_Commission Read More