A B RIEF S NAPSHOT OF V ICTIM B LAMING
This article emphasizes that exploring the psychology of victim blaming is not our primary focus or expertise In civil actions, defenses often attribute harm to consumer misuse or actions contrary to the producer's intentions, thereby placing blame on consumers Understanding contributory negligence and comparative fault, which are key victim blaming doctrines, is essential in the context of tort law.
A recent article by Lindsey Bever highlights a concerning trend where teenagers are daring each other to consume Tide Pods, a dangerous practice that has gained traction on social media The brightly colored, toxic laundry packets have become the center of a disturbing fad, showcasing the need for increased awareness about the risks associated with such reckless behavior.
Thousands of children under five have mistakenly bitten into packets, thinking they are candy, highlighting the urgent need for societal protection for this vulnerable group.
Risk Compensation Theory (RCT), also known as moral hazard, suggests that safety measures can lead consumers to engage in riskier behaviors, rendering these measures ineffective Despite its occasional persuasive nature, RCT has faced increasing criticism as evidence mounts demonstrating that safety measures can indeed lead to positive outcomes.
“marked decline in injury deaths in most of the world over the last 50 years.”
See Barry Pless, Risk Compensation: Revisited and Rebutted, 2SAFETY 1, 6
41 See Cigna Ins Co v Oy Saunatec, Ltd., 241 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir 2001) on the assumption that the actions (or inactions) of product users must be a central part of assessing civil liability 42
Victim blaming can be attributed to two main reasons: the desire to evade legal responsibility and the deep-seated need to feel secure in our environment While the first reason—avoiding tort liability or regulatory consequences—is straightforward, the second reason, which relates to our psychological need for safety, warrants further exploration.
After witnessing a shocking incident, there is often an instinctive urge to assign blame to the victim, reflecting a subconscious desire to distance oneself from potential danger.
As we approach catastrophe, its relatability and fear factor intensify, making it increasingly evident and concerning.
42 See Richard Abel, A Critique of Torts, 37 UCLAL.REV 785, 791, 806
The evolution of tort law has been significantly influenced by discussions surrounding victim blaming and comparative negligence Key contributions include Michael D Green's analysis of comparative negligence's unexpected consequences in product liability, and Frank L Maraist et al.'s reflections on the concept of comparative fault after three decades William L Prosser's foundational work addresses the complexities of victim misconduct within comparative negligence jurisprudence, while David W Robertson advocates for a shift from contributory negligence to a more equitable comparative fault system Additionally, Victor E Schwartz and Christopher E Appel emphasize the need to reassess the implications of assigning fault in legal contexts.
Application of Comparative Fault to Punitive Damage Awards, 78 MO.L.REV
133, 134–35 (2013) (nuanced discussion of comparative fault and punitive dam- ages)
43 See Popper, supra note 25, at 186, 190
44 See generally POPPER, supra note 15 (exploring the arguments of those who seek to limit or change civil liability and those who oppose those limita- tions)
In his article, Donald A Dripps discusses the concept of fundamental retribution error, highlighting how explanations for unexpected harm often lack factual basis He notes that society tends to assign blame simplistically, attributing fights to bullies and accidents to clumsiness, which reflects a deeper social psychology of blame.
In our exploration of interdisciplinary perspectives, we informally tested the premise by presenting law students, administrators, and faculty with two fictional stories Each narrative began with the prompt, "Did you see that piece in the paper this morning about " This approach aimed to gauge reactions and insights from participants within the legal field.
When discussing violent crimes, the location significantly influences the emotional response Sympathy for the victim is often accompanied by inquiries about where the crime occurred Notably, when the crime is situated in a distant part of the city, the conversation tends to dissipate quickly, illustrating that physical distance from the threat diminishes its perceived danger.
The second story highlighted a severe product failure, affecting both consumer goods and pharmaceuticals Following expressions of sympathy, participants exhibited a form of distancing by suggesting that the unexpected incident might have been caused by the victim's lack of attention or failure to read the instructions This perspective implies that the victim played a role in their own misfortune, reflecting a tendency towards victim blaming Such distancing mechanisms serve as benign fantasies that uphold the belief that we live in a just world.
47 We apologize to those social scientists and empiricists who find our meth- ods unconvincing and primitive We accept your criticism We also believe that this insight is beyond question
In his article, Michael L Rustad discusses the prevalent theme of "blaming the victim," which resonates deeply with the American public He explores how this attitude influences perceptions of nursing home practices, tort reform, and noneconomic damages, highlighting the complexities surrounding compassionate conservatism in these contexts.
Victim blaming is a longstanding issue, with roots tracing back to ancient Rome, where defendants often attributed fault to the plaintiff's actions or even the actions of their slaves to evade liability This historical perspective highlights the persistent nature of victim blaming in legal contexts, as discussed by Mary J Davis in her work on comparative fault in product liability.
The illusion that harm only befalls those who fail to take precautions can be shattered when tragedy strikes a loved one who was vigilant and careful A poignant example is the case of Professor Popper’s son, who, at just under four years old, was in a supermarket with his mother when an unforeseen event occurred This highlights a psychological tendency to blame victims, as it is unsettling to accept that the innocent can suffer for no apparent reason Consequently, this mindset influences our civil justice system, particularly in tort and product liability laws, which often lean towards victim blaming.
R EASONABLY F ORESEEABLE M ISUSE AND CPSC’ S S TATUTORY
The CPSC enforces several key acts beyond the Consumer Product Safety Act, including the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Flammable Fabrics Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, and the Refrigerator Safety Act Each of these acts has distinct language for defining safety standards and regulations.
55 See, e.g., infra notes 145–149 and accompanying text
56 Rustad, supra note 48, at 360 (“‘Victim’s talk’ in the tort arena is used to disavow responsibility for defective products, bad medicine, and unsafe prac- tices ”)
The authority and responsibility of agencies to address reasonably foreseeable product misuse is clearly established in the relevant statutes.
In 1968, Congress formed the National Commission on Product Safety (NCPS) to assess the adequacy of consumer product safety protections against unreasonable injury risks The NCPS concluded that an independent agency focused on consumer product safety was crucial Consequently, Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety Act in 1970, largely based on the NCPS's recommendations for establishing such an agency.
The NCPS emphasized that the new agency should possess the authority to address cases of product misuse when such misuse could have been reasonably anticipated by manufacturers It stated that manufacturers or sellers should not be exempt from responsibility simply because consumers used products in unintended ways Instead, manufacturers must be held accountable for injuries resulting from foreseeable misuse of their products.
According to ISO Safety Guidelines, "reasonably foreseeable misuse" refers to the unintended use of a product or system that may arise from predictable human behavior This definition encompasses all users, including the elderly, children, and individuals with disabilities, emphasizing the importance of considering diverse user interactions in safety assessments.
64 See S.J Res 33, Joint resolution to establish a National Commission on
Product Safety, Pub L No 90-146, 81 Stat 466–67 (1967)
65 SeeNATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRODUCT SAFETY,FINAL REPORT 5 (1970) [hereinafter NCPS]
67 NCPS, supra note 65, at 75 The Report further stated, “[m]anufacturers must take all practical steps systematically to prevent foreseeable misuse of products.” Id at 62 See generally BRUCE K MULOCK, CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION: CPSIA
IMPLEMENTATION (2009), https://www.everycrsreport.com/re- ports/RS22821.html [http://perma.cc/9JTV-JZQ4]
Congress intended for the agency to be empowered to address reasonably foreseeable product misuse, as emphasized by Senator Frank Moss, a principal architect of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
I hope the courts recognize that the term "associated" indicates that the risk of injury from the consumer product is not limited to "normal use," but can also arise from various other circumstances.
“exposure to or reasonable foreseeable misuse of the consumer product.” 69
We note that the Senate version of the Act included a defi- nition of the term “use,” which explicitly included a reference to
The House-Senate Conference Committee ultimately chose to adopt the House version of the Act, which omitted the phrase "reasonably foreseeable misuse."
Congress did not reject the Senate's proposal to include consumer misuse in the agency's authority; rather, the Senate conceded to the House on most provisions of the Act The Senate's original intent was to grant regulatory authority over nearly all consumer products to the new agency, which the House strongly opposed.
The Senate Report accompanying the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) defines "use" to encompass not only normal exposure and usage but also reasonably foreseeable misuse This broad interpretation of risk includes potential dangers arising from consumer products being misused, provided that such misuse can be anticipated.
69 118 CONG.REC 36197, 36198 (daily ed Oct 14, 1972) (statement of Sen Moss)
The House bill, as detailed in H.R REP NO 92-1593 (1972), did not explicitly define the term "unreasonable hazard," which parallels the Senate's "unreasonable risk." However, it did clarify that "hazard" refers to a "substantial risk of injury."
72 See BUREAU OF NAT’L AFFAIRS, THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT:
TEXT,ANALYSIS,LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 32 (1973) (“It is general practice with or even minor—disagreement over the role of consumer misuse was ever raised or discussed between the two bodies 73
If Congress intended to exclude consumer misuse from the jurisdiction of the CPSC, it is perplexing that it did not clearly specify this, especially considering the extensive measures taken to broaden the scope of other acts enforced by the agency to cover product misuse.
The agency's authority to safeguard consumers harmed by reasonably foreseeable product misuse has been firmly established, dispelling any remaining uncertainties.
Southland Mower Co v Consumer Product Safety Commission 75
A lawn mower manufacturer contended that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) lacked the authority to regulate its product, claiming that consumers inherently accepted the risk of injury However, the U.S Court of Appeals dismissed this argument, emphasizing that neither consumer misuse nor the assumption of risk could restrict the CPSC's regulatory powers.
Congress aimed to include injuries from foreseeable product misuse in risk assessments This principle, rather than the tort liability notion of "assumption of risk," underpins the Commission's ability to recognize the foreseeable act of consumers removing safety shields as an unreasonable risk of injury, thereby justifying the issuance of regulations to mitigate that danger.
W HETHER P RODUCT M ISUSE IS T REATED D IFFERENTLY IN
PRODUCT RECALLS THAN IN SAFETY STANDARDS
Health and safety agencies face challenges with product misuse during recalls and the establishment of safety standards Although one might consider that these situations require different strategies, there is no legal or public policy basis for this distinction In typical injury cases, strict liability rules eliminate the need to evaluate whether the defendant's actions adhered to a specific standard, similar to the principles applied in strict products liability cases.
In many jurisdictions, a manufacturer’s failure to adhere to safety regulations is deemed negligence per se if it results in consumer injury For instance, in the case of Kaltman v All Am Pest Control, the court evaluated whether the use of an unapproved pesticide in a residential setting constituted negligence per se Similarly, the case of Supreme Beef Packers, Inc v Maddox further illustrates this legal principle.
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that holds individuals or entities liable for violating safety regulations, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which can lead to claims of negligence For instance, in the case of Nettleton v Thompson, the court vacated and remanded a case where negligence per se was alleged due to a fall caused by an unsafe stairway that violated building code standards Understanding the implications of negligence per se is crucial for ensuring compliance with safety regulations and preventing accidents.
JUSTIA, https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/negligence-per-se/ [https://perma.cc/R3UB-WJCX]
93 See infra notes 108–114 and accompanying text
The determination of a "substantial product hazard" differs from assessing an unreasonable risk for safety standards While the former aims to remove a hazardous product from the market, safety standards do not affect existing inventory or distribution The focus of a substantial product hazard assessment is primarily on the risks associated with a product eligible for recall, requiring a higher standard of proof.
Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, firms are required to report potentially dangerous products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) While one might argue that consumer misuse should exempt a product from reporting obligations under the Substantial Product Hazard Reporting Rule, this perspective is unconvincing A firm’s duty to report a potentially defective product to the CPSC arises only when a serious hazard is identified.
The "expected" or "proper" use of a product refers to its utilization in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations In this context, if a consumer uses a product in a reasonably foreseeable way but fails to adhere to the provided warnings and instructions, the manufacturer has no reporting obligation regarding potential safety issues Consequently, if a firm is not required to report a safety concern, it is also not obligated to initiate a recall for the product.
The interpretation of the agency's Substantial Product Hazard Reporting Rule risks leaving serious hazards undiscovered and lacks support from the rule's language This perspective appears to arise from a convoluted interpretation dating back to the 2006 amendment, which introduced various factors for firms beyond those used for establishing safety standards However, these distinctions are irrelevant when assessing whether the CPSC possesses different authority for recalls compared to safety standards in cases of consumer misuse.
Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, companies that identify a defect in their products that may pose a significant hazard are required to promptly notify the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) This obligation is outlined in 16 C.F.R § 1115.12 (2018) and further supported by 15 USC § 2064(b)(3) (2012).
96 See 16 C.F.R § 1115.12(a) (obligating the reporting of noncompliance, a defect, or an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death)
According to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), firms are required to report any information that suggests a consumer product they have distributed does not meet the relevant safety standards or bans.
When determining whether to report potentially hazardous products to the CPSC, it is essential to consider several factors, including the obviousness of the risk, the adequacy of warnings and instructions to mitigate that risk, the impact of consumer misuse, and the foreseeability of such misuse.
Consumer groups raised concerns about the amendment to the reporting rule, fearing it could limit the reports required by the agency While we cannot speculate on the Commission's internal motivations, we can evaluate the CPSC's rationale published in the Federal Register, which clearly indicates no intention to narrow the reporting rule's scope.
The revisions aim to maintain the volume and variety of reports submitted to the Office of Compliance, emphasizing the continued necessity for reporting rather than suggesting any reduction in the importance or frequency of such submissions.
Later, the Commission made the same point by arguing that the added words merely clarified how the Commission had been interpreting its rule for many years:
The Commission staff has always taken into account various factors when assessing potential defects; therefore, the regulation merely clarifies what was previously understood in the Commission's guidelines.
101 See Substantial Product Hazard Reports, 71 Fed Reg 42028, 42029 (July 25, 2006) (codified at 16 C.F.R § 1115 (2018))
102 Id (noting that the Commission and staff may consider some or all of the factors set forth in paragraph (f)(1) in reaching the substantial product hazard determination)
103 Id at 42029 Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Kids in Danger, and U.S PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) raised this con- cern
The recent addition to the reporting rule has not resulted in any substantive changes; it simply formalizes a long-standing practice of requiring firms to report hazards stemming from foreseeable consumer misuse A straightforward interpretation of the amended section 1115.4 supports this conclusion.
When assessing whether a product poses a risk of injury that could classify it as defective, the Commission and its staff will take into account relevant factors.
P RODUCT M ISUSE AND H AZARD W ARNINGS
Manufacturers often define consumer misuse based on their instructions, suggesting that any deviation constitutes misuse However, courts and regulatory agencies have consistently rejected this narrow definition, arguing that it could unfairly limit legitimate consumer uses of products As one court noted, a product cannot be deemed 'misused' simply because the manufacturer intended for it to be used differently; they must demonstrate that the consumer's use significantly increases the risk of harm.
The Commission consistently advises the public to report any uncertainties regarding product defects, emphasizing that firms should take action if they suspect a potential substantial product hazard.
114 Manufacturer reporting is a prerequisite to the CPSC exerting its recall authority See generally id § 1115.2
The CPSC acknowledges that the quantity of products still in consumers' hands is a crucial factor in assessing product hazards Specifically, if only a small number of defective items are present and the risk of injury is minimal, these circumstances generally do not satisfy the criteria for classifying a substantial product hazard.
In the context of product safety, misuse is defined as using a product in ways that a reasonably prudent person would not consider suitable Courts, such as in Magic Chef, Inc v Sibley, have ruled that straying from the intended use does not automatically equate to misuse Importantly, manufacturers cannot evade responsibility for defective products by labeling predictable human behavior as misuse, nor can they rely solely on warnings to mitigate liability for defective designs, as many courts have determined that clear and accurate warnings do not absolve manufacturers from their obligations.
Caution is essential when granting manufacturers excessive authority to define product misuse through their warnings and instructions Research consistently shows that consumers frequently overlook safety warnings due to various factors, including poorly designed warnings and a general aversion to lengthy, complicated instructions.
119 See, e.g., Pinchinat v Graco, 390 F Supp 2d 1141, 1147, 1150 (M.D Fla
In the case of Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co v Martinez, the court granted summary judgment on a failure to warn claim, determining that the warnings provided were "accurate, clear, and unambiguous." However, the court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the defective design claim.
In legal precedents, it is emphasized that when a safer design is feasible, it must be prioritized over warnings that do not eliminate significant risks associated with a product (977 S.W.2d 328, 336 Tex 1998) Additionally, while adequate warnings can potentially lower the risk of injury, they cannot absolve manufacturers or designers from their complete responsibility for the safety of their products (Ulroh v Cty Tank Corp., 384 N.E.2d 1188, 1192 Mass 1978).
120 See Eli P Cox et al., Do Product Warnings Increase Safe Behavior? A
Meta-Analysis, 16J OF PUB.POL’Y &MKTG 195, 195 (1997)
A review of around 400 published articles found no scientific evidence supporting the claim that on-product warning labels significantly enhance the safety of any product.
122 See, e.g., Susan G Hadden, Regulating Product Risks Through Consumer
Information, 47 J.SOC.ISSUES 93, 98 (1991) (discussing problems of highly technical and complex warning language); Brad Mehlenbacher et al., On the
Reading of Product Owner’s Manuals: Perceptions and Product Complexity,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY, 46TH
ANNUAL MEETING 730, 730 (2002), http://jour- nals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193120204600610
[https://perma.cc/UG5H-RSRK]) (discussing the negative impacts of important warning information being placed in owner’s manuals)
• Many consumers fail to read instruction man- uals of products they believe to be safe or familiar 123
• Although consumers claim to like safety training videos, few watch them 124
• Manufacturers too often place warnings in in- struction manuals rather than on the products themselves, resulting in safety warnings not being read 125
Jennifer J Argo and Kelley J Main conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of warning labels, highlighting their impact in public policy and marketing Their research, published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, examines how well these warnings communicate risks to consumers Additionally, J Paul Frantz and colleagues address potential issues arising from the overuse of warning labels, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in their application to avoid diminishing their effectiveness.
The 43rd Annual Meeting of the Ergonomics Society highlighted concerns regarding the overuse of warnings on products and their negative consequences Studies by S Godfrey et al explored consumer behavior, revealing that various factors influence whether individuals notice warning labels on household products Additionally, Hadden emphasized the importance of providing information for consumer protection while also addressing the potential drawbacks and assumptions that accompany such practices.
M Martin, Intended and Unintended Consequences of Warning Messages: A
Review and Synthesis of Empirical Research, 13 J OF PUB.POL’Y &MKTG 1, 6
In 1994, research highlighted that consumers tend to prioritize information regarding product attributes and uses over warning information, even when they are not well-acquainted with the product This finding, presented by Michael S Wogalter and colleagues, underscores the importance of effective communication in consumer product warnings.
The Role of Hazard Perception, 22J.SAFETY RES 71, 72 (1991) (researching how a consumer’s perceived danger of a product relates to the willingness to read warning labels).
124 See Mehlenbacher et al., supra note 122, at 733
125 See Argo & Main, supra note 123, at 195; Latin, supra note 22, at 1208–
09; Mehlenbacher et al., supra note 122, at 733; Elizabeth Tebeaux, Safety
Tractor operation manuals from 1920 to 1980 often included safety warnings, yet many operators failed to read them, leading to tragic consequences, including fatalities This highlights the critical need for effective communication in safety documentation to prevent accidents in agricultural settings.
Manufacturers frequently use overly complex language in their warnings and instructions, making it difficult for many consumers to comprehend them Unfortunately, some risks can only be conveyed using technical or uncommon terminology, which adds to the confusion.
• Merely because a consumer reads and under- stands a warning does not mean that the consumer will necessarily heed the warning 128
• Manufacturers too often place a multitude of warnings on products that overwhelm consumer at- tention 129
• Two groups—the poor and elderly—often re- quire carefully crafted warnings that may be diffi- cult to develop 130
Consumers often face a paradox where they will only read warnings about a product's potential dangers if they are already aware of those dangers; however, they may remain unaware of the risks unless they take the time to read the warnings.
Warnings and instructions often serve as a superficial safety strategy, with many relying on them primarily to evade liability rather than genuinely protect consumers from harm This cynical reliance highlights the inadequacy of warnings in preventing unreasonable risks, emphasizing the need for more effective safety measures.
126 See Hadden, supra note 122, at 98
127 See id.; David R Lenorovitz et al., Mitigating Product Hazards via User
Warnings Alone: When/Why ‘Warnings-Only’ Approaches Are Likely to Fail, 24
HUM.FACTORS &ERGONOMICS MFG.&SERV.INDUS.275, 295 (2012) (criticizing the sole use of inadequate product warnings on vehicles with known hazards)
128 See, e.g., Christopher M Heaps & Tracy B Henley, Language Matters:
Wording Considerations in Hazard perception and Warning Comprehension,
133 J.PSYCHOL 341, 350 (May 1999) (testing the efficacy of warning labels on household cleaners); Stewart & Martin, supra note 123, at 10–13; A.G Vreden- burgh & J Helmick-Rich, Extrinsic Nonwarning Factors, in HANDBOOK OF
129 See Frantz, supra note 123, at 917
130 See Argo & Main, supra note 123, at 195; Hadden, supra note 122, at 93
I NTERNATIONAL P ERSPECTIVES ON P RODUCT M ISUSE
While our primary focus has been on the United States, it is valuable to expand the discussion to highlight the international community's approach to product misuse issues We will examine policy statements from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a non-governmental entity based in Geneva, Switzerland As the largest developer of voluntary standards globally, ISO has established over twenty thousand standards that encompass a wide range of sectors, including manufactured goods, food safety, agriculture, and healthcare.
In 2014, ISO released a comprehensive set of Safety Guidelines emphasizing the importance of addressing reasonably foreseeable misuse in safety standards These guidelines provide clear instructions for producers and stakeholders on how to implement effective safety measures, ensuring a proactive approach to potential risks.
132 See Marc Green, Safety Hierarchy: Design versus Warnings, (2000), http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/safetyhierarchy.html
134 See id.; see also Lenorovitz et al., supra note 127, at 277; Michael S
Wogalter & Kenneth R Laughery, WARNING! Sign and Label Effectiveness, 5
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOL.SCI.33, 36 (1996)
ISO, established in 1926 as the International Federation of National Standardizing Associations, was reformed after World War II in collaboration with the United Nations, leading to its current name, ISO For more information, visit the ISO website.
137 See ISO Safety Guidelines, supra note 19
“tolerable risk.” 138 Below is an excerpt from the Guidelines’ de- scription of the necessary considerations in achieving tolerable risk
6.2.1 All products and systems include hazards and, therefore, some level of residual risk However, the risk should be reduced to a tolerable level
Drafters of standards must take into account safety considerations for both the intended use and potential misuse of products and systems They should implement risk reduction measures to ensure that the risk level remains acceptable.
Standard drafters must take into account foreseeable uses of products, even if those uses are not explicitly intended, based on the collective experiences of end users Special attention should be given to consumer products used by vulnerable populations, who may not fully comprehend the associated hazards and risks.
Many suppliers may believe that end users do not utilize products as intended However, it's essential to factor in predictable human behavior during the design process to ensure products meet user expectations effectively.
Despite criticisms suggesting that product misuse should not be a concern for manufacturers, standards writers, or government entities, there is a strong international consensus that responsible policymakers must safeguard consumers from potential harm resulting from predictable product misuse.
138 Id at 2 (defining tolerable risk as the “level of risk that is accepted in a given context based on the current values of society”)
According to the 139 ISO guidelines, a "vulnerable consumer" is defined as an individual who faces a heightened risk of harm from products or systems This vulnerability may stem from factors such as age, literacy levels, physical or mental limitations, or difficulties in accessing safety information about products.
Many parents have approached the CPSC, urging action against dangerous products that have harmed their families, despite initial perceptions of consumer carelessness Several have admitted to previously dismissing concerns about product safety However, when faced with tragedy, they recognize the importance of protecting all consumers, even those who may not have strictly followed instructions Redesigning hazardous products to enhance safety is often a cost-effective solution.
To pick one poignant example, in 1992, the Commission was petitioned to regulate baby walkers, the cause of numerous serious injuries and deaths that occurred when infants tumbled
In a recent complaint filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), injuries to children were highlighted as part of the proceedings against Britax Child Safety Inc This case underscores the importance of safety standards in child-related products, particularly strollers, and reflects ongoing concerns regarding manufacturer accountability in ensuring the well-being of young users For further details, refer to the full complaint document available at the CPSC website.
Holdings, LLC, Compl at 5–6, CPSC Docket 12-1 (2012), https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/lawsuit_maxfield1a.pdf
In a series of reports regarding child injuries, one document highlights incidents related to a magnet toy manufacturer, which is under scrutiny by the CPSC The reports include a 2018 case where a child was injured due to a malfunctioning stroller, as documented on SAFERPRODUCTS.GOV Additionally, another report from 2012 details injuries sustained by a child from a faulty crib These incidents emphasize the critical need for safety regulations and oversight in children's products to prevent further harm.
142 See Elaine Walster, Assignment of Responsibility for an Accident, 3 J.
A classic study in personality and social psychology reveals that as the severity of an accidental occurrence increases, so does the tendency for observers to assign blame to the victim This phenomenon is explained by defensive attribution theory, which suggests that people are motivated to distance themselves from the victim's misfortune Additionally, research by Neal Feigenson and colleagues examines how factors like blameworthiness and the severity of outcomes influence perceptions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases.
Bystanders often blame victims and distance themselves from similar situations, as noted in research (BEHAV 597, 612, 1997) A Commissioner criticized her colleagues for focusing on regulating baby walkers instead of addressing the real issue: irresponsible caregivers She emphasized that educating parents on installing safety gates at the top of stairs is crucial, stating, “Babies who fall down stairs—in and out of walkers—are victims of the same hazard—unprotected stairs.” Implementing simple safety measures like closing doors or using gates could prevent over 40,000 accidents annually, highlighting that baby walkers do not pose a mechanical hazard.
The dissenting Commissioner irresponsibly prioritized her personal standards of caregiver behavior over the safety of countless innocent children, risking severe injuries or even death Fortunately, once the Commission addressed the issue, manufacturers swiftly created an effective solution: attaching plastic "skids" to the walkers' frames, which functioned as brakes when a wheel went off a step This cost-effective modification significantly reduced the risk of walkers tumbling down stairs, effectively eliminating the associated dangers.
Numerous instances have shown that objections to effective safety solutions often arise due to consumer behavior, which can be perceived as careless Despite these predictable human actions, it is crucial to recognize the value of implementing safety measures that address these concerns.
143Baby Walkers; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information, 59 Fed Reg 39306, 39307 (Aug 2, 1994)
144 See Statement of Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall on Proposed Govern- ment Regulation of Baby Walkers (June 30, 1994)
146 See, e.g., Chicco Walky-Talky Baby Walker, AMAZON, https://www.ama- zon.com/Chicco-Walky-Talky-Walker-