On 3^rd march this year, Pelican Products recalled the pelican flashlights and replacement battery packs due to a fire hazard. 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 illegal for a company to sell unsafe products to consumers. Ethically, it is unethical for a company to sell unsafe products to consumers. Pelican Products should have tested and determined without any doubt that they are safe. This presents a legal and ethical issue. Legally, consumers who had already purchased the product could sue the company for any damages that occurred due to the use of the product. In addition, it can be considered unethical for the company to have sold the products without proper testing.

This situation will be analysed under several ethical theories. One of the theories is deontological ethics theory. Deontology means duty. The deontology theory states that people have a moral obligation to act in accordance with some sets of rules and principles. The morality of an action is based on adherence to some rules and principles. In the presented case, there are rules and principles that Pelican Products should follow which are used to judge its ethical and legal situations.

Another theory to be used in the analysis of this situation is consequentialism theory. As the word states, it is based on the consequences of an action. The theory states that acts and actions are morally assessed based on the state of affair they bring about. These theories must specify the state of affairs that are good and then judge that the choices which bring more good are the morally right.

Under law, the situation will be analysed under the negligent tort. This is because, it a negligence on the part of Pelican Products to sell products that do not meet safety standards. 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 foreseeable 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. The company breached the duty of care in this case.

References

Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007). Deontological ethics.

Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.

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/

Doran, M. R., & Lott, W. B. (2013). A duty of care. Trends in biochemical sciences, 38(1), 1-2.

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

Miller, R. L. (2016). Business Law Today, Comprehensive. Cengage learning.

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.

Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical theory: an anthology (Vol. 13). John Wiley & Sons.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?