The duty of protecting the consumer is usually aired out by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. This paper seeks to analyze one of the products that has been recalled by this body for adjustment. Tank less Water Heaters Recalled Due to Fire Hazard In the event that these tanks were not recalled the liability would fall on the manufacturer; Design Celtic Energy. This is because the tank was developed without the room for these errors; however, the manufacturing process had errors that have accrued all these dangerous factors posed to the users.
On the other hand, the users are not the ones causing the problem because here are a lot of cases being reported regarding the same. Fifth number of incidents was only specific to a class of people then, it would have been a result to the users utilizing the tanks in an improper manner. Duty of care – in the event that these products caused harm to users, this is the initial factor that would be assessed by the regulators. According to the law of tort, the manufacturer has a legal responsibility that requires them to afford consumers standard of reasonable care while they are producing products for the mass consumption/utilization.
In this case, the manufacturer did not awry out enough research to test all the possible defects that could accrue to the product and pose a risk to the user. Which in this case include fire hazard and the possibility of overheating? Standard of care – according to the law of torts, a certain level of morality and virtue is expected by the producers of commodities. It can be perceived that the world of business does not have room for sentiments.
However, in regard of the human aspect that is in everyone; producers and the same standards of care calls for a level of prudence and caution of the entity that is under duty of care. In this event, he standard of care is to be facilitated by the manufacturing company to the consumers (Hadley, 2006). In the event that it was not regarded, they became liable and in some events face prosecution. Breach of the duty of care – in the event that the manufacturer was negligent and the tank less water heaters caused harm to the consumer.
The law would assess the above factors in relation to how the tanks were manufactured. If the breach duty of care is not adhered to, the manufacturing company is fined millions of dollars and made to recall products that they had earlier released for distribution. In some vents, they are also made to pay the consumers who had purchased them earlier on. Actual causation – to determine this factor, the law would have to administer two test. One – to find out the reason the tank less heater harmed the consumer and whether or not the manufacturer is liable.
The first test would be to determine whether a given factor, let us call it ‘reason one’ leads to ‘reason two’. If reason one is caused by the negligence of the manufacturer causing the reason two which leads to the risk of fire in the house of the consumer. Then the manufacturer is liable for the danger caused by the tank sees heater and is bound to face the full length of the law unless proven otherwise. Proximate Causation – according to the law of trots, proximate causation is posed by the negligent of the defendant (manufacturer in this instance).
This comes about as a consequent of applying the ‘sine qua noir’ rule, which means ‘but for’ in English. The plaintiff has to have proof that the danger posed to them would not have occurred if it were not for the manufacturer’s actions. For instance, the overheating would not have burnt the wall but for the poorly manufactured tank fewer heaters. Actual Injury he tort definition of actual injury has it that there has to be real harm that has taken place either emotionally of physically. In this case the harm that is bound to happen is in the physical commodity.
This is because the product poses a risk of fire and overheating that will harm physical property such as a house. In the event that this took place, the manufacturer would have to cover the damages that have been caused by these products. The plaintiff in this instance has the duty of proving that harm took place, this is usually done by the provision of evidence. Victims in this instance would have to bring mages or witness reports that support their case that the physical damages on their walls or fire really happened.
In a situation where fire breaks out a clear police statement would be relevant, in addition, an insurance underwriter’s report can also be admissible (Goldberg, Kebob, & Zipper’s, 2004). Defenses to negligence – the defendant are afforded room to defend themselves. In negligence, there are usually three moves that he can play, in this case they are also applicable and are as follows. 1. Contributory negligence – here the defendant has to prove that the risk was partly caused y negligence of the plaintiff; by doing this the court would reduce the charge that would have been implicated. . Comparative negligence – this applies in that contributory negligence has been proved. The court would allow the plaintiff to recover some of the blame for the damages that have taken place in terms of percentage. This is carried out by looking at the following factors pure, modified and slight gross. 3. Assumption of risk – this would apply in the event that the plaintiff knew the risks involved and still went ahead to engage in the use of the commodity.