Are companies ethically to blame and responsible when customers misuse their products? Submitted by Zohaib Ahmed | BBA VII Section B SUBMITTED TO DR SHAHRUKH HASHMI Assistant Professor| Sukkur IBA University Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Misuse of Laundry Detergent .................................................................................................................... 3 Product Liability Case ................................................................................................................................ 4 Reasonable foreseeable misuse of the product ......................................................................................... 4 Unreasonable Foreseeable misuse ............................................................................................................. 5 Who will be liable in the case of smoking? ............................................................................................... 6 Product Usage Ethics .................................................................................................................................. 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Introduction This report addresses the situation in which companies or manufacturers are held responsible for the misuse of their products in a manner that is not intended by the producer. There are given some examples of product misuse. Like laundry detergent, McDonalds and smoking. And then these examples are summarized on the basis of two product misuse standards that are Reasonable foreseeable misuse and Reasonable unforeseeable misuse. Based on these standards we have tried to conclude whether it is ethically to blame companies when customers misuse their product and should they be liable for the damages or they are free from taking the responsibility of the product misuse. Furthermore, from the two product misuse standard we defined the first standard as, if the product is used in a reasonable foreseeable manner and still it harms the consumers then the manufacturer should bear the liability and regulation from the Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan- different countries have different institutions to protect and ensure customer rights. The second view is reasonable unforeseeable that is defined as the inability to predict or anticipate the misuse. It's possible that a manufacturer won't be accepted liable for a customer's injuries because the company didn't anticipate the customer using the product in a different way. When customers misuse the product while they have been provided with the user manual then the manufacturers/companies are not ethically to blame for such misuse of the products. Moreover, we will look at the moral responsibility in Manual Velasquez view that will elaborate product ethics usage. Moral responsibility, according to Velasquez can be defined in two ways: obligation or duty, or culpability. The concept of moral responsibility that we have, both in the law and in our everyday lives is simple to understand," Manual Velasquez explained. That an individual, an agent, or a company is responsible if, 1) they caused the injury, 2) they knew what they were doing, and 3) they could have prevented it, 2 Companies start with producing the product with good intentions. They attempt to develop the product that is safe for their customers, they advertise the products accurately provide the consumer with the user manual and warn them of any danger that can be caused by the misuse of the products but despite these efforts from manufacturers, Customers are caught misusing things in ways that the producers never intended. As a result, buyers sue the manufacturer for any damages caused by the product. Product misuse is nothing new for manufacturers, they have found lots of cases where Customers have used the product in ways that contradict to the manufacturer guidelines. But today product misuse is seeking significant attention because of the social media viral. There is a video posted on YouTube https://youtu.be/a1rpr0Afhfg that shows a lady consuming laundry detergent. Misuse of Laundry Detergent There are lots of cases where we can find people consuming laundry detergent whereas we know that laundry detergents are not for eating or consumption purpose rather these product are produced to clean the clothes. But if the lady consuming laundry detergent (link given above) is affected by any diseases like stomach disease? Will the company be held liable for this product's misuse? The answer will be No! Because warning labels were incorporated into the product design, manufacturers will not be held liable for the damages. And that it is now the responsibility of the consumer to use the product according to the manufacturer's instructions. Now the question arises here when the companies/manufacturer can be held responsible for any injuries comes from the misuse of the product? These types of issues are handled very well by consumer protection courts. And that it is now the consumer's responsibility to follow the manufacturer's instructions when using the product. Although in a free market it is not required for manufacturers to take precautionary actions against every misuse of the products they are required to have certain duties concerning the product’s use. Therefore manufacturers need to evaluate the uses of their product and should decide when and whether they need to take measures to any misuse. 3 Product Liability Case One study states that thousands of people are injured each year in the United States as a result of defective or dangerous products. "Product liability law" refers to a set of legal laws that define who is liable for defective or dangerous products, but it differs from usual injury law. This set of principles can make it easier for someone who has been injured to obtain compensation. If a customer receives defective products from a manufacturer, the company may be held liable. All distributors in the distribution chain are responsible for a product defect that causes damage. In general, the law states that a product must meet the consumer's reasonable expectations. A product cannot be said to meet the consumer's typical expectations if it has an unexpected defect. As a result, product liability lawsuits are filed under the principles of negligence, strict liability, or warranty breach. There are several cases where companies are sued when their products are misused by customers. But if we talk about the free market where both parties have the right to sell and purchase any product in an environment where there is no information asymmetry, Given that efforts have been made to tell the user about the product's uses and potential dangers, Companies should not be held responsible for the injuries caused by their products. According to this free market philosophy. Here is an example of McDonald which was sued by the consumer for promoting obesity, but the US “common sense consumption” law stated that the companies would not be responsible for the wrong choices of the customers when the companies have provided information about nutrition facts. As a result, fast food companies are exempt from assuming responsibility for their customers' health problems. Reasonable foreseeable misuse of the product The term "reasonably foreseeable misuse" refers to the "usage of a product or system in a way that the manufacturer did not intend, but that can occur as a result of easily anticipated human behavior." A manufacturer may be held accountable for damage caused by a product under a reasonable foreseeability standard, even if the consumer did not utilize the product as intended. In these cases, the consumer must establish that the risk was generated by a reasonably foreseeable abuse that rendered the product faulty, and that the risk was known or should have been known to the maker when the product was delivered. 4 There is a case that one truck driver reached a speed of 115 miles per hour and lost control of the vehicle, killing two persons who were walking by the roadside. When this case came to the court took this as a reasonable foreseeable misuse stated that the tires were meant to speed up to 100 miles per hour so the manufacturer is liable for this misuse of the product and fined the manufacturing company. But the same case was concluded oppositely by another court. It was concluded that the misuse of the product is not reasonable foreseeable because the driver knows the consequences of crossing speed limits and the manufacturing companies have given a warning for crossing the speed limits so this kind of accident that is caused by the over speeding has nothing to do with the manufacturing company and the losses occurred are due to the negligence of driver so the manufacturer should not be liable in such instances. Unreasonable Foreseeable misuse Not all the injuries emerging from the misuse of a product may cause liabilities for manufacturers. When the misuse of a company's product was not reasonably foreseeable, the law absolves them of liability. However, determining whether product misuse is reasonable foreseeable or not is difficult for courts to determine. The misuse of the product is common in every society so generally, the law puts some duties to the consumer of the product to avoid the product misuse issue. Because no company can produce a foolproof product. It will not be considered ethical to blame the companies for the misuse of their product and companies should take it easy when their product is posted on the internet. One unreasonable foreseeable misuse example would be throwing the kitchen knives. Although it seems to be foreseeable misuse that one person can throw the knife it is not reasonable misuse. So when there accrues this type of product misuse accrues then the consumer will be held liable not the manufacturers. Similarly, under these standards, the consumption of laundry detergent is not reasonable foreseeable so the manufacturer does not need to change the product. In general, companies are blamed and held responsible when their results in any injuries to the customers. Public consider that it is duty of the manufacturer to warn the customers about the dangers that can be caused by using their product. For example, tobacco companies are required to have warning labels attached on the tobacco product’s packets so that the consumer avoid any health risk that is resulted by smoking. 5 Who will be liable in the case of smoking? Almost every individual know that smoking is harmful for their health, and that they are not coerced to buy cigarettes, it is their choice whether they are smoking or they are avoiding the cigarettes. Governments have imposed so much policies for cigarettes manufacturing companies that even they cannot advertise their products. Additionally they are bound to include warning labels on the cigarettes packets that communicate to buyer against the danger related to smoking. So if we take any packets of cigarettes, we will find there these lines. “Smoking kills, smoking cause mouth cancer”. Now one thing is clear that smokers are well informed about the health problems resulting from smoking and that the smokers are not forced to buy cigarettes. So despite of knowing the risk of smoking if one individual experience the disease and death. Will it be justified to blame the cigarettes manufacturing companies and held them liable for this danger? After going through some studies it has been found that despite the informing customer, the cigarettes usage or smoking is promoting health diseases among the people so if one blames cigarettes manufacturer for this cause then the blame will be justified. Tobacco firms should also be held accountable for any illness or death caused by smoking. But to some extent smokers could be held responsible too, because tobacco companies do not force people to smoke. It is difficult for people to quit once they have become addicted. Furthermore, tobacco companies use an increased amount of nicotine, which causes people to become addicted to it. According to the research, tobacco companies purposefully use high levels of nicotine to make quitting smoking difficult or nearly impossible. Tobacco companies are well aware of the dangers of smoking, but they continue to manufacture cigarettes and manipulate nicotine levels, which is a serious crime. They are deliberately making mistakes and are unconcerned about health-related issues. The only thing that concerns them is making money in an unethical manner. Product Usage Ethics The concept of corporate moral responsibility, according to Manuel Velasquez, has expanded dramatically during the previous few decades. As we have discussed in the introduction part according to the Velasquez, an individual, an agent, or a company is responsible if 1) they were 6 the ones who caused the injury, 2) they were aware of what they were doing, and 3) they could have stopped it,. This concept also applies to businesses. Traditionally, if the three requirements were met, a firm was declared morally responsible for injuries it caused. On the other hand, moral responsibility has changed over the years. "In the second part of the twentieth century, a firm was held liable for injuries caused by users of its products," he stated. "If the firm was aware of it in some manner, or should have been aware of it, and it might have been avoided, then the company is ethically responsible." This view was expanded even more with the concept of strict liability. "A firm can now be held responsible for injuries that users cause themselves, even if the company was unable to avoid it," Velasquez explained. The moral duty of a firm has been expanded both upstream (to suppliers) and downstream (to customers) in recent years "Over the last 20 years, there were a number of firms that were held morally responsible for injuries that their supplier have done on some third party, not legally, but in the mind of the people," he explained. Companies in the textile industry, toy manufacturing, electronics assembly, and other industries have been considered as responsible in their suppliers' mistreatment of workers, even if they were not directly involved. Many people are now conducting onsite inspections to try to avoid this. Downstream responsibility has also increased in the last two decades. One notable example is gun manufacturers, who have been held morally liable for injuries that they did not cause, injuries that their product did not cause, but injuries that one of their customers caused by using one of their products to inflict an injury on a third party. When you think about it, this is quite different from the first concept of moral responsibility we discussed, in which an entity is morally liable for an injury they cause to another person despite knowing they could have prevented it. This is a broad definition of moral responsibility that is currently used. This raises two theoretical questions: 1) How much do firms bear moral responsibility for how well their customers use their products? 2) How can a business significantly decrease its exposure to such moral obligations? Many businesses are unwilling to respond to the first question because they are concerned of the results. The second question is commonly mentioned in advance by keeping a record of who purchases the products (for example, checking the background of potential gun buyers). By 7 asking the question, they take on the responsibility of keeping track of how their product is being used. Conclusion We addressed some situation in which the blame of product misuse towards manufacturer was not justified in two cases, consumption of laundry detergent and “McDonalds promoting obesity” case. However, in the case of smoking, manufacturers were held liable when their product caused diseases and death. Despite the fact that companies were making aware to the customer about the health problem that can be raised by consuming their product, the product resulted in many health disease among societies and still those cigarettes manufacturer were offering their product to the customer so the motive of those companies was to maximize their profit in any case. That is why cigarette manufacturers are to blame for any disease. After that, we discussed the two product misuse standards. The Reasonable foreseeable misuse and Unreasonable Foreseeable misuse of the product. According to the first standard Reasonable foreseeable misuse. Manufacturer will be held responsible for damage caused by a product, even if the consumer did not utilize the product as intended. And in the second standard, companies were not held liable when the misuse of a company's product was unreasonably foreseeable. But to determine whether the misuse of product was reasonable or unreasonable foreseeable was difficult. To solve this problem we discussed Manuel Velasquez’s theory of corporate moral responsibility. Velasquez was in a view that, an individual, an agent, or a company is responsible if, 1) They were the ones who inflicted the harm. 2) They were aware of what they were doing, and 3) They had the ability to prevent it. "A firm is now held responsible for injuries users inflict on themselves, even though the company was unable to prevent it," according to the Velasquez theory of strict liability. 8 Sources https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/the-ethics-of-product-usage/ https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/what-is-product-liability.html https://www.schiffhardin.com/insights/publications/2018/when-must-manufacturers-anticipateproduct-misuse https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/should-tobacco-companies-held-responsible-forsmoking-related-illnesses-and-deaths/ https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsr edir=1&article=2858&context=bclr https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/who-should-pay-the-productliability-debate/ https://dailytimes.com.pk/335251/are-corporations-responsible-for-blatant-product-misuse-bytheir-consumers/ https://youtu.be/a1rpr0Afhfg 9
