ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#148386 - 11/10/04 10:05 AM Federal Court Upholds Reporting Requirement for Companies
Admin Offline

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3417
Loc: NY, USA
Federal Court Upholds Reporting Requirement for Companies
Major victory for CPSC against company that challenged $300K civil penalty
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing a major court victory that upholds one of CPSC’s most potent weapons: the requirement for companies to report dangers and defects with consumer products to the government in a timely manner. The court ruled unanimously that companies who fail to abide by the reporting requirement can be held liable to pay substantial civil penalties (court ruling - PDF) .

The ruling was made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Diego, Calif., and affirmed a $300,000 civil penalty against Mirama Enterprises Inc. Mirama, which does business as Aroma Housewares Co., failed to report a serious product hazard with its electric juicers that shattered and injured consumers.

“This case is unprecedented, as no court has ever addressed CPSC’s reporting requirement,” said Chairman Hal Stratton. “The Court agreed with CPSC that companies must tell us about potentially dangerous products even before they are found to be defective and that companies are liable for reporting every product they sell that poses a danger to consumers.”

Specifically, the appellate court held that “a company commits a separate offense for every potentially dangerous unit it fails to report.” As a result, the court ruled, “Aroma was required to report not merely the twenty-three juicers that shattered, but the 30,000 to 40,000 juicers in the stream of commerce that might well pose an unreasonable risk of serious injury to consumers. When it failed to do so, Aroma committed 30,000 to 40,000 reporting offenses.”

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Aroma’s argument that proof of a defect was required before a civil penalty could be imposed for a failure to report under the Consumer Product Safety Act. The appellate court held that “Congress’s decision to impose penalties for reporting violations without requiring proof of a product defect encourages companies to provide necessary information to the Commission.”

“When companies inform us right away about a problem with a product, it allows CPSC to work quickly and cooperatively with the company to determine if the product is defective, and if it is, then we can warn consumers before anyone suffers harm,” added Chairman Stratton.

The district court case was the first time that a federal court 1) found that a company had violated the reporting statute and 2) directly imposed a civil penalty. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Consumer Litigation represented CPSC in the Aroma cases.
Click >> CPSC Press Release

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 11-10-2004).]
Arc Flash PPE Clothing, LOTO & Insulated Tools

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 11/17/00
Posts: 2232
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (sparkyinak), 57 Guests and 8 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 47
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 19
Ruben Rocha 12
Trumpy 9
Newest Members
Scotto, Freecrowder, clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN

ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals