Pelican Products Recalls recalled the pelican flashlights and replacement battery packs due to a fire hazard. The product was recalled on 3^rd march of 2016. The recall number is 16-113. The flashlights are equipped with lithium ion batteries and have replacement battery packs. The company has received two complains of the battery packs overheating. However, no injury has been reported yet (Consumer Product Safety Commission). With the recall, consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact the company to receive instructions on how to return the items.

It is the responsibility of Pelican Products to make sure that their products are safe for consumer use. Pelican Products owes a duty of care to the consumers given that their actions directly affect the customer.  The main idea of negligence is that companies should exercise care when acting by taking into account that the actions might foreseeably cause harm to other people (Seaquist & Coulter, 2012). It is foreseeable that if the Pelican Products sells products unsafe for public use, the consumers will certainly be hurt.

In the case of pelican products, the battery packs are overheating. The products should have been tested before being released to the public for use. The fact that the battery packs are overheating means that the company either did not test the products or tested and released them.  In either case, there was negligence on the side of the company. Had the products not been recalled and had caused harm to consumers, the company would be liable for negligence. However, if the harm occurs due to the negligence of the consumer like misusing the battery packs, the company would not be liable.

Duty of Care

This is the obligation to avoid omissions or acts, which are in reason foreseeable to cause harm or damage to another person.  Whenever a person is engaged in an act that he/she knows it can cause harm to others, one owes a duty of care to those other people.  To establish the duty of care, it is necessary to establish the reasonable foreseeability. Any event is reasonably foreseeable if the actions of the defendant increase the probability of the event. In addition, harm is reasonably foreseeable if the plaintiff’s harm is related to the actions of the defendant (Rhee, 2013).

In the case, Pelican Products reasonably foresee that the battery packs can overheat. Any electronic is liable to overheating. The fact that the product is being sold increases the probability of it causing harm. Therefore, Pelican Products owes a duty of care to the consumers.

Standard of Care

This is the minimum accepted care based on laws, administrative orders, protocols and guidelines. Standard of care is judged based on what is expected of someone acting a similar position. The standard of care depends on the circumstance and the determination whether it is breached is based on facts. It is also phrased in terms of a reasonable person (Coleman, 2010).

In the case of Pelican Products, there are protocols and administrative guidelines that are followed to ensure all products being sold to the consumers are safe.  Under similar circumstances, any reasonable person would take great care to ensure that the product is safe for public use. Pelican Products did not exercise the standard of care for not following the guidelines set for the sale of electronics.

Breach of the Duty of Care

Once determined whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, it has to be determined whether the duty of care was breached. If the defendant knowingly or unknowingly exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm, there is breach of duty of care (Rhee, 2013). In addition, if the defendant fails to recognise the potential risk of harm which any reasonable person would have recognised, there is a breach of duty.

In the Pelican Products case, the battery packs are reported to be overheating. Pelican Products sold battery packs that could overheat meaning that their decision to sell the products increases the likelihood of causing harm to the consumer. In addition, if any harm occurred to the consumer, it would be due to the company selling him/her a product that could cause harm. Any reasonable person knows that electronics are liable to overheating. In my view, if the battery packs caused any harm, Pelican Products would have breached the duty of care by selling battery packs that could overheat.

Actual Causation

Actual causation is the straightforward cause of harm. If the action of one person directly cause harm to another person, this results to actual causation.  However, the harmed party has to prove duty, breach of duty and the damages. In the case of Pelican Products, had the battery packs caused any harm, there would have been a breach of duty.  Pelican Products sells the products to consumers (Meier,2011). If a consumer is injured in the cause of using the product, it is not the direct actions of Pelican Products that causes the injury. There is no actual causation in this case.

Proximate Causation

Proximate causation is the indirect causation of injury. It is the primary action that causes the injury. It may not be the first or the last event that occurs before the injury occurs. It is the action that led to the injury without intervention from anything or anyone else (Seaquist & Coulter, 2012). In the Pelican Products, any injury would have occurred because the consumer purchased an item with foreseeable risks.  If any harm occurred to a consumer, there would be proximate causation.

Actual Injury

To prove negligence, has to prove that there was actual harm and not imaginary harm. The injury does not necessarily have to be physical but it must be real. The idea is the injury must be provable. If the Pelican Products battery pack caused a fire that is actual damage. However, overheating can cause psychological damage due to fear.  Such damage though real is hard to prove.

Defenses to Negligence

There are several defences to negligence. They include contributory negligence, comparative negligence and assumption of risk. Contributory negligence is used when the plaintiff contributes to the negligence. If the plaintiff was responsible for the injury, he/she will be held responsible even when the defendant is more responsible for the injury than the plaintiff is. Comparative negligence involves applying percentages to both parties. The percentages depend on the degree of responsibility each party has towards the injury (Coleman, 2010). In the case of Pelican Products, the party with the highest degree of responsibility towards the injury is liable.

Assumption of risk is when a plaintiff voluntarily or knowingly assumes the risk of harm is connected with the defendant’s negligence.  In case the plaintiff has assumed the risk, recovery of damages is not possible. In the case of assumption of risk, if a consumer assumes that the battery packs are risky because they were recalled, he/she cannot claim for damages.

References

Coleman, J. (2010). Theories of tort law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Consumer Product Safety Commission. (n.d.). Pelican Products Recalls Flashlights and Replacement Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard. Retrieved March 07, 2016, from http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Pelican-Products-Recalls-Flashlights-And-Replacement-Battery-Packs/

Meier, L. (2011). Using Tort Law to Understand the Causation Prong of Standing. Fordham Law Review, 80(101).

Rhee, R. J. (2013). The Tort Foundation of Duty of Care and Business Judgment. notre dame law review, 88, 1139.

Seaquist, G., & Coulter, K. (2012). Business Law for Managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?