Negligent Tort - Research Paper Example

The paper will discuss whether the manufacturer has to take liability for consumer’s harm before looking at the consumer protection statute. Introduction Kawasaki Motors together with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled about 210,000 products from the market due to reports that there were serious risks from its lawn mowers. According to the recall notice published on the CPSC’s website (cpsc.com, 2010), the Kawasaki Motors received about 110 cases of fuel leaks from the engines although no injuries were reported.

This recall included Kawasaki FH, FR, FS and FX series engines that are widely used in homes and golf courses. If this step was not taken legal implications could have arisen on the liability of the manufacturer as well as the role which consumers were to play in the whole situation. Although no harm was reported, the manufacturer could have been in serious implications on his reputation. However, if the worst case scenario happened, Kawasaki Motors could only be liable to the damages if the plaintiff proved that the company failed to be responsible.

Justification of the Manufacturer’s Liability The manufacturers can only be liable if plaintiffs prove that the company failed to honor its duty of care, ensure standards of care and provide evidence of actual harm. On its part, the company must present a strong case based on the defense of negligence in the transaction. These factors are elaborated in the following part. Failure to Honor Duty of Care Kawasaki motors could be liable for compensating the plaintiff if there was an element of carelessness in their product.

This is because it is the responsibility of the producer to ensure that the product in the market meets the prevailing safety standards according to Feinman (2010). However, this can only occur if the plaintiff produced contracts that proved that they were owed duty of care by the manufacturer. Many cases such as the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) are thrown out if the plaintiff has no direct relationship with the defendant. The major concepts of duty of care that the plaintiff must prove to be compensated are that, the harm is reasonably foreseeable, reasonable proximity between the defendant and plaintiff lastly, the charges must be fair and reasonable.

Failure to Provide Standards of Care If Kawasaki Motors failed to act as any responsible person would do in the case of harm, it would be liable. It is a measure to determine the amount owed to the plaintiff. In the same breath the aspect of breach of duty also must be included in the defense. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have the duty to honor the contract of responsibility such as the case of McGhee vs. National Coal Board (1973). Actual and proximate causation must play part in the case.

In order for the manufacturer to be liable, there must be a direct link between the errors or negligence and the harm that was caused. The actual causes must be the mistakes of the manufacturer. Defense of Negligence In cases of harm that happened and could not be prevented, Kawasaki Motors can escape liability if it provides a sufficient defense of negligence. If there is evidence that there was contributory negligence, liability on the part of the defendant may not materialize (Mark and Ken, 2003).

Consumer Protection Statutes (CPS) These are laws and procedures that are aimed at protecting consumers from unfair trade, safety and other aspects that may be