Introduction
This paper discusses a product recall that involved Halco LED Bulbs. When the product was being manufactured and sold to clients in different international markets, it was mainly used for displays in retail outlets. The PAR30 bulbs that are also in this category measure about 4.75 inches long and 3.75 inches wide while the PAR38 bulbs measure approximately 4.75 inches long and 4.75 inches wide (CPSC, n.d). Several LED bulb models, such as the PAR30/14WW/NFL/LED, PAR30/14WW/FL/LED, were also included in this recall. Essentially, a product recall is affected if a product is found to cause more harm to users about benefits.
The recall date of the ProLED bulbs was July 15, 2014, with the recall number: 14-123. The main reason behind this recall is that when in operation, the LED bulbs may overheat. Since they are mostly hanging above consumers, they may fall onto them. The result of such a fall may be either a serious burn or injury. Hence, the ability of these bulbs to separate from the sockets poses a threat to t consumers and warrants their recall.
Brown, Nicol, and Ferguson (2005) argue that the LED bulbs are manufactured in such a manner that during operation, they neither generate heat nor release UV and IR radiations into the environment. Considering the sophistication of the technology involved in manufacturing the products, the safety of consumers relies on the safety procedures and precautions set by the manufacturer. In case the product had not been recalled by the manufacturer and it causes serious harm to the consumer, the manufacturer (Halco Lighting Technologies) would be fully liable for negligence.
Duty of care
In tort law, the duty of care would involve the legal obligations that would be imposed on the Halco Company to ensure that it highlights a reasonable care precaution to the consumers of its product in ensuring that they are not harmed or injured (Howells & Weatherill, 2005; Seaquist, 2012). Recalling this product by the company emphasizes the company’s consideration of the safety of its clients and that the release of these products into the market was not by negligence.
Standard of care
In this case, the standard of care determines the level of prudence and caution that the Halco Company has taken in producing its products professionally. The level of negligence in allowing the use of the LED bulbs by the consumers is minimal and the risks that have been reported by the consumers of the goods are less (Seaquist, 2012). The company had already eliminated all the environmental hazards that the bulbs might have posed to consumers with the only hazards being reported to be on overheating of the bulbs. This is controllable through the use of appropriate power watts. Hence, the company had observed a standard of care in its product production process (Kim, Bae, Kim, Kim & Song, 2012).
Breach of the duty of care
The business establishment has a duty of care to its consumers and is expected not to breach it in case of a serious health risk report posed by its products. In making a recall on its LED bulbs, the company has taken responsibility for its products and, hence, has not breached a duty of care.
Actual Causation
This involves a relationship between conduct and result (Seaquist, 2012). The firm’s quick reaction to this issue in recalling its product indicates its dedication to serving its clients efficiently by ensuring that it responds to any result or complaint that may result from the use of its goods (Howells & Weatherill, 2005).
Proximate causation
The few reports that the firm has received contain no legally recognized injuries from the company’s goods (Seaquist, 2012). Though several causes of falling LED bulbs have been reported, the company’s products have not caused any physical injury to its consumers.
Actual Injury
No actual prejudice of the reported cases has passed without the company’s response (Seaquist, 2012). In responding swiftly to the reports from its clients and recalling its products, the company had demonstrated its dedication and willingness to ensure the safety of its clients.
Defenses to negligence
As per this case, it would be expected that the clients of Halco’s LED Bulbs complain of health risks and injury resulting from the use of the LED bulbs and cite negligence for the harm (Seaquist, 2012). However, in this case, the manufacturer had stepped in before any serious damage is experienced by the consumer hence ensuring a quick consumer protection strategy (CPSC, n.d).
Conclusion
Considering the recall of the LED bulbs by the Halco firm, the consumers should be able to understand the risks associated with the continued use of these products. As per the consumer protection guidelines, the company is no longer responsible for any injuries that may result from using the LED bulbs after this recall. According to CPSC (n.d), consumers should immediately stop using purchasing and using products that have been recalled from the market.
References
Brown, D., Nicol, D., & Ferguson, I. (2005). Investigation of the spectral properties of LED-based PAR30 bulbs for general illumination. Optical Engineering, 44(11), 111-123.
Howells, G. G., & Weatherill, S. (2005). Consumer protection law (2nd Ed.). England, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
Kim, Y., Bae, H., Kim, G., Kim, H., & Song, S. (2012). Analysis of the Electrical and Optical Properties in Omni directional LED Bulbs by Energy Star. Journal of the Korean Institute of Electrical and Electronic Material Engineers, 25(9), 750-754.
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). (n.d.). Halco Recalls LED Bulbs Due to Risk of Injury and Burn Hazards. Web.