Case Study 6.2 - Failure to Warn

Case Study 6.2 - Failure to Warn - The warning stated to...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Although, Melissa puts forth a strong case that Emerson Electric failed to warn the consumer of the unforeseeable danger with its product “The Weed eater XR-90”, I respectfully disagree. The warning clearly states to keep the children away, especially when using the blade. It could be argued that Donald Pearce (a 13-year old) violated the warning requirements and when he went 6 to 8 feet near the Weed Eater to pick up something off the ground. Considering this case was from 1987 when the rules and regulations for the warning labels were not as clearly stated by the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Emerson Electric has provided fair precaution to avoid the incident.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The warning stated to “Keep children away. All people and pets should be kept at a safe distance from the work area, at least 30 feet, especially when using the blade.” Clearly indicates that Pearce should have been at least 30 feet away while his uncle worked with the Weed Eater XR-90. Although in retrospect, Emerson Electric should add more detailed warning regarding exposure to the 270 degree section of blade edge. If the uncle would have been injured in this case, Emerson Electric would have been clearly liable for damages. Respectfully submitted, Ankita Shah...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/13/2009 for the course ACCOUNTING ACC 100 A taught by Professor A during the Fall '09 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online