Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your response is substantive:
Discuss the challenges that would exist if your employer (or a fictitious employer) were to adopt your classmate’s strategy.
I need 2 responses to each student discussion board post. Please keep separate and in order. APA format.
1.David Mackusick
Hello Marcus,
Thank you for your comments on the defective imported products issue. You did a nice job of supporting your argument that U.S. retailers should be held liable for injured due to defective imported products. Good point that imposing liability on U.S. retailers would tend to make them be more careful about choosing the products that they import.
Additionally, imposing liability on U.S. retailers would allow consumers to recover damages for their injuries. This is an excellent example of a social policy reason for imposing tort liability on retailers. A business is in a better position to protect themselves for a large claim by purchasing liability insurance and then pass the cost on to the consumer. This is called socializing the risk and it provides the means for injured consumers to recover damages without imposing a heavy burden on the retailers. The cost is actually spread among consumers.
Class, do you agree that socializing the cost of tort claims is good social policy? Explain.
2. Tamika Rolle
Retailers should have a level of responsibility to consumers to ensure that they remain free from injury as a result of using or consuming their products. Tort law is grounded in the principle that individuals have the right to live free of unreasonable interference from others, and the purpose of tort law is to provide just compensation to injured parties for civil injuries inflicted by others (Seaquist, 2012).
U.S. companies should be liable in tort injuries for consumers who are harmed by their products, which would mean that they are not legally exempt from liability. As consumers, there is an expectation that “product sellers bear a special responsibility to consumers to provide safe products and the public has the right to expect that sellers will stand behind their products” (Stewart, 2016, p. 29). The consequence of a policy to U.S. businesses would be that there would be some financial impact to the business if pursued legally by consumers under tort law. This speaks to a theory in law known as strict liability, which holds manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers liable for defects in the design or manufacturing of products that render such products unreasonably dangerous to the intended users (Seaquist, 2012).This in itself will make business owners pay greater attention to the quality of products if they know that they will hold some responsibility in how this product affects the consumer. If there is no accountability to businesses, there could be less attention paid to quality standards. All businesses owners are concerned with protecting the “bottom-line”, therefore, being able to impact a business financially would be the consequence to a policy that allows companies to be liable in tort injuries.
Assuming that U.S. retailers do have legal liability for defective products, one strategy that retailers and manufacturers can take to minimize their liability exposure would be to ensure that products leaving the country of origin actually go through the required quality inspections. It is estimated that only 50% of the food and products being exported from China are actually submitted to quality review in an effort for manufacturers to cut costs (Harris, 2007). As a U.S. retailer seeking to reduce its tort liability, it would be your responsibility to ensure that your products receive quality inspection prior to being shipped from the manufacturers. One of the biggest challenges that U.S. companies would face with this strategy is that it would be an extra expense to ensure quality inspections are done. This may require hiring additional staff or conducting regular random checks in person. However, this additional cost may be worth it in an attempt to avoid potentially harming a customer and ultimately finding yourself liable under tort law.
References
Harris, D, (June 6, 2007). How to protect your company from bad China company. China Law Blog. Retrieved from https://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/06/how_to_protect_your_company_fr.html
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Stewart, L. S. (2016). Back to the Future: Renewing Strict Product Liability in Florida. Florida Bar Journal, 90(7), 24–29. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=116410270&site=eds-live&scope=site