Consumer Product Safety Case Summary
Would you report the incident to the Consumer Product Safety Commission? Explain.
I would most certainly contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission if my child were to experience anything remotely close to what Kendra did. The CPSC has a section titled RECALLS which provides access to new and old recalls that one may have missed. To help prevent the worst from happening to other families and their children I think its important that the CPSC should know about anything problematic regarding any item. One imagine how many families will buy into CARDWARE marketing/advertising campaign "Lets Keep Warm", so the quicker one notifies the CPSC the quicker CARDWARE can take it off their shelves.
Discuss whether you would sue the manufacturer/CARDWARE …show more content…
Explain.
Are you kidding me? I would sue for both negligence and strict liability because the above case allows for me to. According to Strict Liability, a product must be unreasonable dangerous. The charms on the Dolls sold by CARDWARE are not sewed properly by the manufacturer. The dolls and sweaters should be marketed towards early year teenagers around the ages of 9 to 12 instead of "babies". In the above case the plaintiff is physically harmed which is another requirement for strict liability (cut in her esophagus). I would go as far and say that the manufacturer of the doll were attempting to cut costs by fast producing them; however, the manufacturer are not marketing these dolls rather CARDWARE. I would sue CARDWARE for negligence because based on the product containing harmful pieces should be marketed towards much older kids.
To sum:
Sue the Manufacturer for strict liability because the manufacturer fails to safely check the dolls and create a much safe design.
Sue CARDWARE for negligence for failing to market the product to much older children knowing the possible ricks.
Something to Think About: Should there have been a warning placed on the sweater or packaging?
I believe that a warning sign should have been placed on the sweater and package because we are dealing with products that may contains parts that could potentially be
I would most certainly contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission if my child were to experience anything remotely close to what Kendra did. The CPSC has a section titled RECALLS which provides access to new and old recalls that one may have missed. To help prevent the worst from happening to other families and their children I think its important that the CPSC should know about anything problematic regarding any item. One imagine how many families will buy into CARDWARE marketing/advertising campaign "Lets Keep Warm", so the quicker one notifies the CPSC the quicker CARDWARE can take it off their shelves.
Discuss whether you would sue the manufacturer/CARDWARE …show more content…
Explain.
Are you kidding me? I would sue for both negligence and strict liability because the above case allows for me to. According to Strict Liability, a product must be unreasonable dangerous. The charms on the Dolls sold by CARDWARE are not sewed properly by the manufacturer. The dolls and sweaters should be marketed towards early year teenagers around the ages of 9 to 12 instead of "babies". In the above case the plaintiff is physically harmed which is another requirement for strict liability (cut in her esophagus). I would go as far and say that the manufacturer of the doll were attempting to cut costs by fast producing them; however, the manufacturer are not marketing these dolls rather CARDWARE. I would sue CARDWARE for negligence because based on the product containing harmful pieces should be marketed towards much older kids.
To sum:
Sue the Manufacturer for strict liability because the manufacturer fails to safely check the dolls and create a much safe design.
Sue CARDWARE for negligence for failing to market the product to much older children knowing the possible ricks.
Something to Think About: Should there have been a warning placed on the sweater or packaging?
I believe that a warning sign should have been placed on the sweater and package because we are dealing with products that may contains parts that could potentially be