This situation puts the company and their consumers in a very bad place, this is extremely scary

for the child as well as her mother who fortunately saw her choking and helped her in time. The

clothing item is marketing for children who are up to the age of 6, therefore most of the parents

are not going to foresee a potential choking hazard. And for that, CARDWARE can be, and

should be reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The company should put a

warning on their products for the consumers or at least make sure that the charms that they’re

attaching to the sweaters won’t come off and cause a choking hazard. According to the

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, it was basically brought to existence in order to

‘establish consumer product safety standards and other requirements for children’s products and

reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission.’ Which means that

organizations that produce children’s products are accountable for creating products that are safe

for the children. I’m not sure as to what type of suit Kendra’s mother should be pursue but in my

opinion a product liability or negligence would suffice. CARDWARE could defend themselves

by making claim that their product was misused and that the charms attached to the cardigans

should not be put in one’s mouth, but the prosecuting attorney can easily respond to that because

CARDWARE has a duty to warn their customers regarding foreseeable misuse of their products

beforehand, like small charms that can potentially become a choking hazard. All kids of

children’s products should have such warnings and if the charm is small enough that it can be

ingested then it is the company’s responsibility to put a warning on the product.

The company failed to provide adequate warnings when the clothing items were marketed for

children ‘upto the age of 6’ and their oversight of the potential hazard on the clothing label. The

company should’ve also assured that the charms were attached to the sweaters with strong
adhesive, they should improve the quality of their products in order to make sure nothing like

that happens again with their consumers.

What Kendra’s mom should take into consideration is that how much would it cost her upfront

and if it is worth it to sue the company or not. But in my opinion she should definitely sue, come

to think of it, I would definitely base this on negligence. It is the manufacturer’s duty to make

sure that they provide adequate warnings about the product. Comparative and Contributory

Negligence could be used a possible defense in this case. The defendant’s negligence and the

plaintiffs will be computed and the liability for damages with be distributed under comparative

negligence. However, the company could argue that the mom should watch the child closely and

that could’ve prevented the child from ingesting the charm and eventually choking on it. Both

parties could be held liable in this situation and the judge for state that maybe CARDWARE was

only 45% at fault and that they would have to pay the plaintiff for only 45% of the damages.
References

1. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2017, from

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/consumer-product-safety-commission

2. Miller, R.L. (2016). Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized

Cases Edition: 10th Retrieved from Purdue University Global Bookshelf: Cengage Advantage

Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today: Summarized Cases, 10e (vitalsource.com)