One criticism of safety regulations are that they are paternalistic. In the case

Question

One criticism of safety regulations are that they are paternalistic. In the case cited provide a strong argument for or against the verdict based upon your thinking in how comprehensive safety regulation must be: The consumer purchased a lawnmower. The manual and the mower itself had many operational warnings on what to do, what not to do, and the safety equipment to wear. The consumer put on his safety goggles as suggested by the warnings and hefted the lawnmower with his hands to trim his high hedges. The mower fell on him and severely injured his legs. The consumer won the case against the manufacturer for failure to warn, 'don't use this mower to trim hedges' and got paid a lot of money

Explanation / Answer

Sell products to the customers is not a ultimate objective of an organisation. It should observe how product is useful to them, company has to see the safety of consumers. Consumer product safety improvement Act 2008 say that customers should get necessary material from seller to use products properly like videos, books,.

In this case, consumer received some basic material how to use, , what not to do with product. But he severely injured , , because he was not able to use product with basic information which provided by organisation.

In my opinion, here company might be spend some time to explian him weather this lawnmower is useful to trim high hedges or not. If it is possible, company should provide some practical knowledge by giving demo, if company provide this facility to him, its no need to pay that much of amount to him,

So in my opinion, safety regulations provide proper guidance manually and practically

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.