Consumer Protection Agency Is Tasked With Ensuring

Consumer Protection Agency is tasked with ensuring that products which are deemed unsafe are removed from the market either permanently or until they meet federal safety standards. The agency provides a list of these products for the public, and they are generally announce in some fashion also. The agency maintains a website via which it keeps a list of the products that have been recalled and for what reason. The press release gives a full description of the product, why it was recalled, and where it could have been purchased.

This is both to let the people who were going to buy it and those who had already purchased it, that the product is faulty and for what reason. The release also gives the people who have already purchased the product information regarding where they can go to have it fixed or the contact information of the firm that can be sought for refund.

In the case of major purchases such as cars, the manufacturer will generally have the victim go to a local dealership whose technicians have been trained to fix the issue. Less expensive products and those designed for certain consumers are simply recalled and either a refund or a new, approved product is given as a replacement. For this particular study of the program, a recent recall of trampolines was chosen.

The press release of the recalled trampoline type will be examined, followed by a discussion of the negligence statutes that govern selling a faulty product, and the recently passed (2008) Consumer Product safety Improvement Act which has specific sections with regard to children's products. Recall Press Release Any press release from the Consumer Protection Agency has the authority of the agency foremost. The first element of the release that someone will notice is the large bold typeface used to instruct the purveyor that this is a recall notice.

The company's recall information is prominently displayed so the consumer is not required to read any further in order to receive information from the offending company itself. Information is then given as to the company which is responsible for the recalled item, where it could have been purchased and what the hazard is. The consumer is then given information with regard to the cost of the item, how many were recalled and how the consumer can fix the supposed issue.

In the case of the Sportspower Parkside model TR-14FT-COM trampoline, the repair needed has to do with the fact that "The trampoline's metal legs can move out of position and puncture the jumping area, posing a risk of injury, including deep, penetrating puncture wounds, cuts and bruises to children and adults on the trampoline" (CPSC, 2012). The release goes on to report that there has been one incident where a leg separate and punctured the jumping area, but, they say, no injuries have been reported.

Although this could be serious issue, the company has designed an acceptable fix, signed off by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), that can be obtained by going to a Sports Authority store and getting the recall kit. The very bottom of the press release contains a blurb that explains the purpose and mission of the CPSC. It says, in part, that "CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.

Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $900 billion annually" (CPSC, 2012). This explanation is likely meant to ensure the public that in all matters that have to do with marketed products, the CPSC is providing the safety that the public demands. Negligence The possible damage that this product could have caused is severe. The fact that only one incident occurred out 23,400 purchased (CPSC, 2012) is irrelevant.

The fact that the company did not test the product sufficiently to detect the flaw can be seen as negligence on their part. Duty of care speaks to the need of a manufacturer to make sure that the products they sell are sold with a reasonable amount of care taken during their manufacture. The fact that the legs could come loose and puncture the jumping area does not seem to be reasonable care.

It follows that the individual who has a duty of care to the public must also exercise that under some standard of care which Sportspower obviously did not meet. However, if a person was injured they would have to prove that the duty of care had been breached by the manufacturer. This does not have to be willful, just present in their negligent act. One way that this can be argued is by showing actual causation.

In this case, if the defect had not existed in the trampoline, then the injury would not have occurred. However, it would probably not be difficult for the manufacturer to argue that there was a proximate cause (such as uneven terrain or improper set up of the equipment) because there are always variables involved. The complainant has to prove that the actual injury received was directly caused by the malfunction of the equipment, and not due to the proximal cause.

Findlaw (2012) states that Sportspower could use an argument that there is comparative fault (as in the complainant is equally guilty for the injury due to some action of theirs) or they can that there is an assumption of risk when someone jumps up and down on a trampoline. Although these would both be stretches for the defense, it is possible that the first would work if it was found that the equipment had been improperly installed.

CPSIA An improvement was recently voted on by Congress that would tighten the regulation contained in the original Act that created the CPSC. The Consumer.