The Product Safety Issue - Research Paper Example

? Products Liability Research Paper PRODUCTS LIABILITY RESEARCH PAPER Introduction Product liability is one ofthe sections in the law whereby the manufacturers who make products to the public must be responsible for the injuries the products might cause to the customers. The claims which are commonly associated with product liability include the following; strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty and consumer protection. In the case of Ford motor company, the claim falls under the manufacturing defect whereby the company purchased defect tires (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). Company description The Ford Motor Company is one of the leading manufacturers of vehicles and has a strong position in the global automotive market. The company widely engages in the development, manufacturing, distribution and service of vehicles, parts and their accessories. Ford corporate philosophy of stable improvement powerfully contributes to its immense achievement. The company endeavors to enhance its car products to appeal to its customers both buyers and potential buyers. At present, it concentrates on an advanced generation of consumers and creating stronger ties with this youthful market. As a result of its novel strategy, Ford has created a new line of vehicles, targeting the generation of “cool” and Ford main competitors include Toyota motor Company and GM motors (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The product safety issue that led to the lawsuit Ford Motor Company was recently involved in an accident involving a 15 passenger Ford F-350 Econoline Van. Information shows that the van skidded off northbound interstate 5 in Kern County after the tread separated on its rear right tire. It becomes evident that evidence from the trial testified that the Ford officials had earlier on been contacted by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and knew that the product was defective, but the company officials never made any effort to conduct its dealers or its customers. Further evidence also shows that one of the men killed in the rollover was not wearing a seat belt during the accident. The panel also found that it would not have mattered in a crash in which the van rolled over four times while travelling at 70 miles per hour. Ford was then assessed with 59 percent comparative fault. It was also assessed $50,000,000 in punitive damages as a result of the accident (Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering, 2004). The legal theories used by the plaintiff to recover in this lawsuit, how the lawsuit was resolved, and why you agree with the decision in the case The legal theory applied in the above case is product liability and negligence. The theory states that any injuries, death or any loss which may be as a result of a person or entity's negligence to fulfill any legal duty owed to another may be responsible for the act. These injuries are based on the legal theory of product liability and negligence and for one to establish a legal claim for negligence, it is required that the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a legal duty, the defendant breached that duty and this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff injuries and the plaintiff was injured or even damaged in one way or the other. While laws may differ from state to state, deaths or injuries may be imposed for negligence (Birsch & Fielder, 2004). For instance, Kristi D. Roofer one of the plaintiffs sued the company over the manufacturers who sold the van which was involved in that accident as Ford failed to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists. The lawsuit argues that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous and ultimately caused the death of the passengers. The defendant is accused of negligence for failing to design and manufacture a crashworthy vehicle and with proper seat belts to reduce accident deaths (Birsch & Fielder, 2004). According to the products liability case used by the plaintiff to follow lawsuit, the law requires that a manufacturer to exercise a standard of care that is more reasonable for those who are experts in manufacturing similar products. Even if any plaintiff can prove that any manufacturer has failed to exercise the proper standards of care, the plaintiff can never recover without proving two aspects of causation. It is required by the theory that the plaintiffs to first show that, but in the case of the manufacturer’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant would have foreseen the risks as well as the uses of the products at the time of manufacturing. A claim in a products liability suit may be based on misleading information which can sometimes be conveyed by the manufacturer of the product in question. Any person who relies on that information conveyed by the seller and who is harmed by such reliance may recover for the mis- representation. Considering the case at hand, the plaintiff applied the product liability theory to follow the lawsuit against Ford and Firestone about the high incidence of tire failure. When Ford investigated the firestone 15 inch tires that included ATX, ATX 2 and wilderness AT, it easily discovered that the tires had a high failure rate (Birsch & Fielder, 2004). Under the doctrine of strict liability, anyone who is injured as a result of a mechanical defect in a motor vehicle is supposed to be protected even though the defect was not the cause of the collision which precipitated that injury. Section 402A of the restatement of torts includes a provision of strict liability on the part of the manufacturer of a given product. The manufacturer, therefore, is liable for any product defect that might occur during the manufacturing process and notwithstanding the level of care which is employed by the manufacture. There is no rational basis for limiting the manufacturer’s liability to such instances where a structural defect has caused the collision as well as resulting injury. This happens because even if a collision is not caused by a structural defect, a collision may precipitate to the malfunction of a defective part and cause injury. In such a situation, the defect as well as the injury is interdependent and therefore, should be viewed as a combined event (Birsch & Fielder, 2004). Describe the changes that have taken place in the company to ensure greater safety of this product or its products. At Ford Motor Company, safety engineering teams as well as sustainable environment have worked together in order to ensure that technical and also regulatory expertise relating products safety, emissions, vehicle recycling and fuel economy is up to standard. The company is highly committed to work with products and manufacturing operations to ensure that there is a regulatory appliance of all Ford products and facilities worldwide, recommended corporate policies and above all be a customer interface for all related matters (Roush & Webb, 2000). For instance, the SE& SE team works together with cutting edge technologies to ensure that they offer the best products in the market. The Ford safety plan is that it is cooperating with other automakers and also the department of transportation to research on wireless vehicles which would help in reducing accidents in roads. This would ensure that in future, the total number of accidents is reduced due to increased technology on the new vehicles. As a result of increasing rollovers, Ford Motor Company developed safety standards for instance regulating roof strength to ensure that all its vehicles could withstand pressure on their roofs in case the van is involved in a rollover accident. This would be one of the main safety rules to decrease the number of deaths when the car is involved in an accident. In the case of recessed door handles, that were less likely to cause a door opening, Ford management has moved forward to ensure that all doors are properly inspected to ensure that the doors are not loose. Ford's strategy mirrored that of other automobile manufacturers in the past. For instance, the company makes cars with Type 3 door handles (Roush & Webb, 2000). The Ford/Firestone case is one of the latest and also the most recognizable instance of manufacturers knowingly producing defective tires. Ford 2013 fusion comprises of driver assistance technologies which are based on sensors, cameras and radar that is supposed to enable the car see and respond. It therefore, helps drivers keep a proper lane position, try to adjust the drivers speed in accordance to the changing traffic conditions with the help of an adaptive cruise control. The active park also helps in identifying a suitable parking position. A blind spot information system (BLIS) also helps in craning across traffic alert and it comprises of sensors situated in both rear quarter panels which help in detecting traffic in a drivers blind spot. This system therefore, helps in providing audible and visual warnings if traffic unseen by the driver is detected. With all these safety strategies in place, Ford has been in a position to reduce the total number of accidents which have made the company to receive lower returns due to high competition in the market. For instance, the Ford consumer response towards the 2006 fusion had exceeded their expectations. The company realized 30,000 vehicles sold during the first quarter of 2006 (Roush & Webb, 2000). Make recommendations to the company about avoiding future lawsuits As far as the accident is concerned, proper maintenance of products as well as vehicles is paramount to preventing similar tragedies from reoccurring like the recent rollover crashes. It is required that the users of 15 passenger vans should make sure that these vehicles have appropriately sized tires properly inflated before any trip is taken. It is clear that tires degrade over time, therefore, spare tires should act as a replacement of worn-out tires and it can be recommended that those tires which are older than 10 years should never be used at all. According to Consumer advisory: NHTSA 15 passenger van safety caution, it is required that (1) the owner of the vehicle should maintain their vehicles properly through a thorough inspection, (2) owners should also make sure that drivers are fully trained and also should be experienced in operating the 15 passenger vans with a proper license (3) all 15 passenger vans are sensitive to loading and it is required that they should never be overloaded under any circumstances as overloading in many cases leads to rollover risks and the vehicle is unstable throughout the journey (5) the vehicle passengers should ensure that they buckle up every tip they have to make (Stapleton, 2004). The regulatory agency that oversees the particular industry the company is in NHTSA is one of the company’s regulatory agencies which are responsible in implementing and enforcing motor vehicle safety. The agency oversees the company products and ensures that all products manufactured by the company meets the vehicle safety standards. If any of the company’s products does not comply with an applicable FMVSS or contains a defect which is related to motor vehicle safety, for instance, a defect that manifests itself after a considerable operation in the field, the manufacturer by statute must furnish owners with a notification and a remedy for the defect (Stapleton, 2004). Conclusion Many companies including Ford motor company face an increasing diverse set of products liability and face challenges that require not only a keen insight into developing legal doctrines, but also adept case management and coordination. A skillful case management and coordination is essential to any company due to the uncertainties which might occur time after time. The products liability and also mass tort litigation frequently involve a hundred of separate cases and plaintiffs. The product liability theory therefore, requires companies to come up with doctrines which would help them survive when such tragedies occur. References Birsch, D. & Fielder, J. (2004). The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business, and Technology. New York: SUNY Press. Roush, M. & Webb, W. (2000). Applied reliability engineering. Roswell: RIAC. Stapleton, J. (2004). Product Liability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steering Committee on Product Liability and Innovation, National Academy of Engineering. (2004). Product Liability and Innovation: Managing Risk in an Uncertain Environment. Washington: National Academies Press. Read More