Tort Law: Consumer Protection & Food

Tort law is an essential part of doing business because issues can arise with products and services that people purchase. For example, any sort of company that produces food for consumption is going to face formidable challenges when it comes to product safety. After all, the “Consumer Product Safety Act” was passed in order to protect consumers from purchasing foods and goods that are not safe for consumption (Module). This law is part of consumer law, which has three major elements; (i) duty; (ii) breach; and (iii) injury. In the case of buying food, a common example would be getting sick after eating, having moldy or bad food or even the wrong ingredients. Any of these instances would be a breach of duty on behalf of the company. While companies work really hard to make sure that their products are always safe, sometimes that is not the case. Companies can inadvertently produce unhealthy or unsafe products for a variety of reasons. In the case of food, any sort of large scale contamination can affect millions of units, thereby threatening food security. 

One recent example where this tort law was relevant to me was when I purchased some clams from my local seafood market. According to the tort law, the grocery store has a duty to sell me safe seafood that is not bad, infected with e-coli or other problems. A breach of this duty was that there was a recall for the clams and the grocery store did not act upon it. As a result, the injury was that I was sick afterward. Just like the tort law stated, “consumers are always owed a duty in a variety of instances and these laws are designed to protect the consumer” (Module). Even if the product was recalled according to the Federal Government’s (2010) website, the grocery store had a duty to do what it could to get that product off of the shelf and away from consumers like myself. However, they did not do that in time and I ended up purchasing a bad batch of clams. So, the breach of duty was clear that they did not take action on the bad product that they sold at the seafood market. While it is not clear whether it is the seafood provider who is responsible or the grocery store, but one of them is surely responsible for not taking action on a clear product recall. 

While I did not exercise my right to litigation and pursue the issue, I did suffer damages that would constitute the third element of a tort. Mainly, I was sick and had to stay in bed while my stomach was upset. I had to make several visits to the doctor and take some special medication in order to get the food out of my system. In this case, the company would have had to pay damages for my doctor visits, medications, and my pain and suffering that I experienced. The lesson I learned regarding tort law was that while companies cannot control problems that arise, they are always under scrutiny to act in favor of protecting the consumer. I understand why instances like mine are treated differently than criminal cases. The company clearly was not intentionally trying to make me sick with their clams; instead, it happened as a result of their negligence towards addressing the product recall. 

It is also interesting to consider how negligence plays in with consumer protection laws as well. While it is the responsibility of the company to “remove dangerous products from the market,” sometimes commercial interests must be a negative influence on the company’s decision makers (Module). For example, if a company is considering taking a product off of the market because it poses a minimal liability, the company may take the risk of being fined or going under public scrutiny if it will be worth it from a commercial aspect. This is more of an ethical issue to consider, but it also relates to negligence because companies have a duty to protect consumers in all circumstances, even if that means less profit or sales.

Reference

Federal Government. (2010). Recent recalls. Recalls.gov. Retrieved from http://www.recalls.gov/recent.html.