The concept of Negligent Tort is widely used to describe actions of failure by an individual or organization. It is definitely a form of negligence which can likely cause harm or danger to a person. The law of torts allows a person to sue a company due to harm or injury caused by carelessness or negligence of a company, and therefore, organizations usually recall products from the market immediately a company realized a mistake was made when manufacturing a product to avoid law suit. Therefore, Lenovo is one of the companies which the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled its product early this year due to faulty. However, this paper discusses the recall product from the market by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission due to certain default which could cause harm to the public.
Lenovo is one of the largest electronic manufacturing corporations specialized in laptops, desktop, mobile phones and notebook. On February 6, 2018, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled Lenovo ThinkPad laptops because of its fire hazard (MCLaim, 2018). The recall was issue due to an unfastened screw which was regarded by the commission as dangerous. The unfastened screw could easily damage the battery of the laptop cause overheating. It was established that such overheating can result to fire hazard and therefore, a recall was issued to protect the public from any danger which might be caused by the company’s negligence.
The recall number for the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop is fifth Generation ThinkPad X1 Carbon. According to report from the commission approximately 78,000 units of laptops were called from the market (Lenovo Support, 2018). It is estimated that 5,000 pieces of Lenovo laptops were recalled from Canadian market so that the company can fix the unfastened screw issue. Even though the unfastened screw can be viewed by someone as minor without analyzing the impact or effect to user if any case it busted due overheating. Under the law of negligence of torts, the commission has responsible to make sure that such negligence or carelessness do not cause harm to consumers. As stated by McLaim (2018), recall of products is necessary so that an organization can fix the mistake found on the product when already in the market, to make sure public safety is maintained.
However, if Lenovo ThinkPad laptops were not recalled so that unfastened screw could be fixed, the Lenovo Company would have been held responsible for all damages caused by the laptop. First and foremost, the law of torts gives an individual the right to sue a company for the harm, damages or injuries caused by a product due negligence which could have been avoided through careful assessment (Owen, 2011). For instance, if Lenovo battery burst into afire and burns an individual or a user, the court shall order the product to be analyzed or assessed by the experts. This is done to establish the genesis of the harm and if it is due to company’s negligence the product will be withdrawn from the market at the same time compensation will be issued to the person. According to Jansen (2004), the company should always be liable to any harm caused by negligence or carelessness of a company. Therefore, failure to fasten the screw is carelessness and any Lenovo Company would be held liable to any harm or danger caused by the unfastened screw.
However, under the law of tort, negligence or other harms which are caused by negligence is punishable under civil case. It will compel the victim to file a law suit under the civil case so that Lenovo would be held responsible for its actions. Research established that several companies have been sued before for negligence. For instance, Uber was sued for data breath by a customer. It is clear that every company a duty care to make sure that every product manufacture meets the standard required. In the case of Lenovo, The ThinkPad laptop can cause harm to users and therefore, ThinkPad laptops do not the moral standard or legal obligation to be sold customers. According to Stevenson (2000), duty care is the moral obligation or duty of a company or an individual to make sure that every goods produce is fit and standardized.
Standard of care is the level prudence or caution required for a person or a company to take when under duty care. In the case of Lenovo product which was recalled from the market, it is evidence that the company did not apply standard of care as a result a certain screen was not properly fastened. Standard of care help in avoiding unnecessary negligence which could be costly to an organization. If standard care procedure were followed strictly, Lenovo ThinkPad would have been released to the market with unfastened screw and therefore, it is evidence that standard of care was not properly applied to the laptops to check the faulty parts. In this case, Lenovo could be easily be penalized for any harm cause by the faulty laptop to any customers under the law of torts.
Most importantly, the breach of duty is registered when a person or a company trusted to provide duty care ignores its duty and produce products which can cause harm to users. Lenovo Electronics automatically committed the breached of the duty care and produced faulty laptops which can easily harm users. It is due to negligence because the unfastened screw could have been fixed before the products leave the factory by because of negligence, the company did not fix the problem (Stevenson, 2000). The problem would have not happen knowing but since it could have been avoided the company is regarded to have breached the duty, which is punishable by the law.
It is evidence that if Lenovo would have tested ThinkPad Laptops before releasing the products to the market, the fault part would have been detected. Actual Causation is the actual test to the product to avoid certain result which can occur if a product release to the market without proper test and assessment. Actual Causations can be termed as the cause of breach of duty care, duty care, which results to actual injury. For instance, if ThinkPad Laptop would have busted and burned an individual, the actual Causations would have been the burn. And therefore, Lenovo could be sued of burn resulted as breath of duty care. In the content of the law of torts, Defense negligence is the shared responsible between the user and the company. It is normally used in courts to argue that an individual is partially involved for the injury. In the case of Lenovo, it can be argued that a person overcharged the laptop which caused the overheating and therefore, customer contributed to the cause of injury (Jansen, 2004).
In the can of an accident, a court would require a clear understanding of what happened before an accident occurred. Therefore, proximate Causation provides a statement or chronological events of exactly what happened when an individual was injured as a result of negligence of a company or the breach of the duty care. It help to established whether the injury is legal bidding and can be compensated and a Lenovo be held liable (Jansen, 2004). However, if the laptop bust and burn a customer because of the unfastened screw, then the cause of the accident is unfastened screen. Proximate Causation therefore, assists in establishing the cause of an accident which is essential in case there is a lawsuit in court. The actual injury is what was caused by the unfastened screw from the laptop battery and it can either be burn, broken leg, or suffocation.
Jansen, N. (2004). Duties and Rights in Negligence: A Comparative and Historical Perspective
on the European Law of Extracontractual Liability. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 36 (12), 15-68.
Lenovo Support. (2018). Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 5th Gen Laptop Recal.
lhttps://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/ht504453 , 1-15.
MCLaim, R. (2018). United States Consumer Product Safety Commission: Recall List.
https://www.cpsc.gov/recalls , 5-15.
Owen, D. (2011). THE FIVE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE. HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW ,
Stevenson, D. (2000). Negligence: The Duty of Care – General Principles and Public Policy.
ttps://www.cilexlawschool.ac.uk/assets/File/Text%20Samples/TOCs%20and%20SPs%202016/HQ13%20Law%20of%20Tort%20Sample%202016.pdf , 5-35.