In U.S., the civil justice structure has incorporated the torts laws which basically relate to circumstances where the unlawful demeanor of one party brings injury to another. The law which tacklestortious conducts bases it on either negligent or intentional acts or such contacts can lead to a lawsuit. A negligent tort is the type of tort that holds up one party which has duty of care provisions responsible for causing harm to a third party due to carelessness or rather negligence on their part. Therefore the accused party fails to apply rational care so as to safeguard against hazards that were identified to cause probable harm, and also those that a person ought to have recognized would generate an unfair threat of hurt to third parties. In the country, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is tasked with the duty of protecting the general public from irrational risks of harm or even death associated with the consumption of numerous consumer products which falls under the agency’s authority.
The country loses close to USD 900 billion each year due to property damage, injuries, and even deaths from incidences of consumer products and therefore the CPSC is fully committed to safeguarding consumers and also families from goods that pose a mechanical, chemical, electrical, and even fire hazard to the community (Larson (2003)). This essay will tackle a home product called the Homelite Electric Blower Vacuum which the commission recalled last week on February 21, 2013 as the machine posed a risk to its users. Product recalling usually the process in which the defective goods are retrieved from the public to prevent further harm and provide compensation to the affected consumers. The Homelite Electric Blower Vacuum was recalled under the recommendation of the CPSC as the objects which were being sapped into the machine while undertaking vacuum cleaning posed a laceration risk to the users since these objects could shatter through the synthetic casing (CPSC - Homelite Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums, n.d.).
There was one reported incident concerning the Homelite electric blower vacuums even though no injury accounts have been launched yet. The CPSC recalling involved two dissimilar models of the Homelite electric blower vacuums together with ranges of serial numbers and the units which were affected included those in Canada about 13,600 and 241,000 sold in the U.S. (CPSC - Homelite Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums (n.d.))Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
The government of the U.S. has enacted quite a number of acts which entail product liability and they apply to all the companies which manufacture or even sell products to the general public. These companies are accountable for making sure that the products they release to the market are extremely safe and are by no means hazardous to the consumers. For that reason, such business companies are held totally responsible for any harm or injury caused by their products. Therefore if the Homelite electric blower vacuums had not been recalled under the orders of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and cause harm to the consumer, then the manufacturer would definitely be held responsible for carelessness or negligence.
The Uniform Product Liability Act found in the United States constitution Section 102(2) states that "all claims or action brought for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the manufacture, design, formula, preparation, assembly, installation, testing, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging, or labeling of any product" (Product Liability - Development of product liability laws, n.d.) makes up the product liability. Therefore, any harm caused by a product would accuse the manufacturer of negligence and therefore liable to prosecution. With respect to the Product liability act, all producers ought to ensure that their goods are risk free and do not pose a threat to the consumer.
Moreover, the companies which make consumer goods have the responsibility to observe duty of carewhich basically describes the requirement the Homelite Consumer Products Inc. would have used to operate towards the consumers with a lot of prudence, caution, attention, and watchfulness that could be applied by a rational Company. The duty of care if not applied by a company whereby in this case it is the Homelite consumer Products Inc., it is said that the company has committed negligence, and its liable for a lawsuit. On the other hand, standard of duty expresses the legal or ethical duty that the Homelite Company ought to exercise professionalism and high levels of skill, diligence, and care with respect to its policy of practice. These standards would have prevented the company from producing faulty equipments thus manufacturing products which are safe for consumer use (Larson, 2003).
The breach of the duty of care happened when the Homelite Company violated the duty of care it had towards its consumers and thus failing to act in accordance with its professional standards. The company was responsible for carelessness in its production and causing personal injuries to consumers. The actual causation commonly called the factual cause refers to the cause without which a certain occurrence may possibly not have happened. The examination technique used is “but for test” and it is employed in determining the actual causation of an event. In this case, it was considered whether were it not for the Homelite electric blower vacuum the injury incident would have occurred. The response showed that the machine was responsible for inflicting the injury.
The proximate cause term describes the principal source of a certain injury. This legal cause is the factor which brings about harm without any interference of any unforeseeable or independent cause. The actual cause of the injury is presumed to have been the shattering of the glass casing of the blower vacuum thus causing lacerations to the user. Actual injury refers to the provable injury which was caused by the vacuum cleaner while the consumer was operating it (Larson, n.d.).
Once the negligence lawsuit is launched, there comes up defenses to negligence which are raised by the defendant towards the avoidance of bearing the negligence liability. The most common defense towards the fight of negligence to liability is the contributory negligence whereby the defendant argues out that it was the claimant’s own negligence was responsible for his/her injuries. Also, the comparative negligence action is sort when both the defendant and plaintiff are responsible of some level of negligence (Defenses to Negligence - Negligence – Torts, n.d.).
The Consumer Protection Act is a pact of the U.S. constitution which is aimed at protecting customers from producers. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it offers legal provisions to individuals and particularly in section 9. This law affects any individual who leases or purchases services or goods for mostly household/family or personal purposes (Boston College Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law (1969)). Therefore of the consumer suffers loss due to the utilization if a specified good then he/she is able to launch a lawsuit with the Supreme Court. Therefore, the electric blower vacuum case is a good example where the complainant has been given the constitutional right to launch a court case accusing the Homelite Consumer products Inc. of negligence since the company is liable for its products.