Negligent Tort

Week 2 Assignment
Bus: 670
Legal Environment

Introduction
Although we hope for integrity in business matters this is not always possible. Most
organizations would like to protect their good name by making sound and ethical decisions in
business. Although not every business organization adheres to this truth of moral standard. We
will be examining the consequences of those who dont. We will select an organization that had
an inferior product and examine the process that the organization went through in having their
product recalled and making this right after such an incidence.
The organization that will be examined is Triaminic Syrups and Theraflu warming Relief
Syrups. The child resistant caps failed to work properly. Because of the ingredients in these
products it is required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to properly have these
medications in child proof tamper resistant bottles. By these products containing acetaminophen
and diphenhydramine it is necessary to have child resistant packaging to prevent unintentional
ingestion and poisoning.
Consumers are asked to contact: Novartis Consumer Healthcare toll-free at
(866) 553-6742 from 8 a.m. to midnight ET, Monday through Saturday, or online at:
www.novartisOTC.com for more information (Dentel, 2013).Authorities are interested in
hearing from consumers who have experienced problems with these products. This recall
involves Triaminic Syrups and Theraflu Warming Relief Syrups for coughs, colds and fevers.
There are 24 types of these two products included in the recall. A complete list of products, lot
numbers and National Drug Codes (NDC) can be found at www.novartisOTC.com. Lot numbers
are located on the bottom panel of the box and on the left side of the label on the bottle. The
NDC number is located on the upper right corner of the front panel of the Triaminic Syrups box
and the upper left corner of the Theraflu Warming Relief Syrups bottle( Dentel, 2013 ).

Tort Law
One concern is if organizations use proper duty of care. Duty of care in Tort Law
basically is a legal obligation imposed on an individual that they provide reasonable care in a
situation that anyone else in the same situation would perform the same reasonable care.
Reasonable care negligence is when one does not utilize the proper due diligence and duty of
care in a situation that someone in the same situation would perform. Organizations and their
employees have to be cautious to use sound judgment in business matters.
Another concept to look at is the standard of care which goes hand in hand with the duty
of care. Standard of care is actually like the depth of prudence, caution, and sound judgment that
is required of one who is under the responsibility of duty of care. Negligence is basically an
individual failing to provide wise recourse in providing a standard of care and exhibiting
acceptable duty of care. These work together to compliment and ensure adequate care, thought,
and diligence is given in how one responds meticulous in there service. On the flip side the
standard of care in dealing with negligence is more related to ones conduct rather than ones
state of mind.
In comparison, in order not to breach a duty of care one must be careful to meet the
standard of a reasonable person in that same situation. In being able to establish a breach of duty
one must be proven individually or as a company failed to live up to standard in their duty of
care, towards someone / something that they are responsible for. The key is to pay attention to
the way you render service to others individually and professionally and to always use the
reasonable person rule that you are responding in good conscious as a reasonable person would
in the same given situation.

Consumer Protection Statute

Actual causation is when several careless acts by themselves would cause injury. Each act
is identified as an actual cause. Proximate cause is an act from which an injury is caused. A
proximate cause is a response that causes this immediate result for causing injury. The actual
injury is the compensation for actual damages that are determined and given as compensation for
injury.
One thought for a defendant in any type of negligence suit most likely attempts to
discredit the validity of one of the elements of the plaintiffs cause of action. The key to
protecting oneself personally or professionally in business is once again the reasonable man if
one takes the proper care and course of action that a reasonable person in that same situation
would do. This may somewhat seem redundant but it is the message for one to give due diligence
to how they perform and how they make sound decisions and give adequate care and reasonable
service. It is not worth having your name discredited or being charged with negligence.
One way that I would try to defend myself against negligence is to cause reasonable
doubt and to discredit their defense against. It is your responsibility to anticipate you opponents
tactics and to counterattack them. It is best to show due diligence to not go there but if need be
there are three things on can try to counter attempts to defend against a negligence suit. These
tactics would be assumption of risk, superseding cause, and contributory and comparative
negligence.
The assumption of risk as a defense one is basically saying they are not liable for the
plaintiffs injuries. In comparison, superseding cause may relieve from responsibility from the
party whose actions started the series of events which led up to the accident, by directing the
attention to one who was determined to actually be responsible for it all. Also two other concepts

to examine are comparative negligence when the injured person still is able to recover some
damages even if they were partially to blame. And Contributory negligence is when the injured
person may only receive compensation if they did not have any part in contributing to the
accident in any way.
In reviewing the Triaminic Syrups and Theraflu warming Relief Syrups failure to provide
the child resistant caps to work properly. At this time the extent of damages are the injured
individuals having to obtain medical assistance who needed medical care and no deaths have
been reported. This company has been around for a while and it was not the actual product that
was harmful but the packaging it come in to provide child resistant protect. The reasonable
persons standard is an objective one; it requires each person in society to act in keeping with the
standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would apply under the same circumstances.
The reasonable person standard uses as its model a fictional member of society that represents a
citizen of average intelligence, average common sense, and average skills (Seaquist& Coulter,
2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the organization being examined is Triaminic Syrups and Theraflu
warming Relief Syrups. Their child resistant caps failed to work properly. Because of the
ingredients in these products it is required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to properly
have these medications in child proof tamper resistant bottles. Both of these products containing
acetaminophen and diphenhydramine it is necessary to have child resistant packaging to prevent
unintentional ingestion and poisoning. The failure was in proper packaging the medications. We
see the key to success is the reasonable persons standard which uses as its model a fictional
member of society that represents a citizen of average intelligence, average common sense, and

average skills. This model helps things to be refocused and to lessen the effects of negligence
and to extend proper care in doing what has to be done.

References:
Seaquist, G., & Coulter, K. (2012) Business law for managers.San Diego, CA:
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved 7/11/13

Inspector General: Christopher W. Dentel (January 31, 2013).United States Consumer

Protection Commission.http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/Triaminic-andTheraflu-Products-Recalled/#Remedy . Retrieved 7/11/13