Answer: The doctrine of strict liability holds that anyone in the value chain is liable for
harm caused to users if the product as sold was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The use of the strict liability doctrine in U.S. courts is a primary reason for the litigious
state of the nation. While some parties argue that strict liability increases product safety,
others note that the costs of these lawsuits ultimately are passed on to the consumer.
Absolute liability goes beyond this to say that a firm is liable for damages even if it had no
way of knowing that the product might cause a problem later. Under this principle, it does
no good for a company to claim that it did its best at the time, given the prevailing state of
businesses’ decisions to conduct business in a particular jurisdiction.
5. Question: Given the current business and consumer climate, what do you anticipate the
future to be for the CPSC and the FDA? What role does politics play in your answer?
Answer: Although business is, by far, the most powerful social institution in the United
States, the consumer movement seems to be holding its own. In part this is due to the fact
that business is so competitive that firms cede some power to consumers in the hopes of
capturing more business. With that climate as the backdrop, it is likely that the FDA and
CPSC will continue much as they are now—going concerns with moderate successes and
6. Question: What is your assessment of business’s response to product and service quality
and safety? Have they done enough? What is missing from their approaches?
Answer: It seems that businesses have strived to improve the quality and safety of products
and services over the last decade. Corporate focus on these issues is driven by businesses’
need to (1) retain a loyal consumer base despite increased competition, and (2) avoid costly
litigation. Consequently, business, as a whole, seems devoted to meeting customer