Negligent Consumers vs. Unethical Companies

Can any company "really expect the average consumer to act with strict prudence" and do companies need to take precautions "with the worst case scenario in mind as to consumer behavior" (Hartley, 33, 2005)?

These two questions illustrate one of the most striking ethical issues that face every product-based company in operation. In the particular case of Firestone and Ford, consumers were held partly responsible for their tire blowouts and Explorer roll-overs because they did not check their tire pressures before driving, over-loaded their vehicles, and drove at high speeds for long periods of time. According to Firestone and Ford, the results of this consumer negligence was not something their companies should be held accountable for. Not surprisingly, this stance did not sit well many of their consumers, nor the general public. And although checking tire pressure before driving is commonly recommended in vehicle operation manuals, rarely, if ever, does anyone follow this guideline.

But does having this disclaimer in an operations manual eliminate manufacture culpability completely, or should a company go further to protect consumers when the potentially negligent behaviors of consumers (such as not checking tire pressure consistently) is known beforehand by the manufacturing company? Perhaps in the Firestone/Ford case the answer to this question seems simple because the consequences of the known consumer negligence could result in consumer fatalities.

But what of companies whose products, when and if misused, have less dire consequences? For example, consumers commonly use Q-tips to clean their ears despite the many health warnings against this practice. In fact, Q-tips makes it very clear on their packaging that using their product to clean ears is not recommended, and goes further by suggesting other, more appropriate, ways to use Q-tips. Now suppose a law suit is filed claiming that someone has lost part of their auditory abilities due to repeatedly using Q-tips to clean their ears. Is this person's hearing loss the responsibility of the Q-tips manufacturers, or of the consumer?

An even more extreme case would be the now famous McDonald's Hot Coffee Incident (Lectric Law Library) that resulted in warning labels being placed on all hot beverage containers stating that the contents of the container was indeed "hot" and could potentially cause burns. Was it McDonald's fault that this particular consumer was burned when she spilled hot coffee on herself? Are these warning labels ethically necessary from McDonald's perspective?

Using these three cases as examples, it is possible to see how fine a line there exists between what consequences are the responsibility of a manufacturing company verses the responsibility of a negligent consumer. Like most ethical issues, the answer to this question seems to be a matter of degree - How likely is it that consumers will improperly use the product? How severe are the consequences of its improper use? - In today's litigious society, failing to address these questions before incidences arise will be costly at best.

Sources:

Hartley, Robert F. 2005. Management Mistakes and Successes. Eighth edition. Hoboken, NY. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

The Actual Facts About the McDonald’s Coffee Case. Lectric Laws Library Stacks. Reference URL: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm