Negligent Tort

Visit the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. website. Click on “Recalls.” Choose one product that has been recalled.

Describe the product subject to recall, including the recall date, recall number, and the reason for the recall.
Analyze whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer.
Discusses the following in relation to the product recall:
Duty of Care
Standard of Care
Breach of the Duty of Care
Actual Causation
Proximate Causation
Actual Injury
Defenses to Negligence
Analyze and apply a relevant consumer protection statute identified under “Consumer Protection” in Chapter 8 of your text in conjunction with the product recall that you have identified. Must address the topic with critical thought.
Submit a four- to five-page paper (not including title and reference pages). Your paper must be formatted according to APA style as outlined in the approved APA style guide and must cite at least three scholarly sources in addition to the textbook

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2018/Panasonic-Recall…

BUS670.W2A1.05.2015
Description:

Total Possible Score: 10.00

DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT SUBJECT TO RECALL, INCLUDING THE RECALL DATE, RECALL NUMBER, AND THE REASON FOR THE RECALL
Total: 1.50
Distinguished – Thoroughly describes the product subject to recall and provides specific product details including the recall date, recall number, and the reason for the recall.

Proficient – Describes the product subject to recall and provides product details including the recall date, recall number, and the reason for the recall. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic – Somewhat describes the product subject to recall and provides some product details including the recall date, recall number, and/or the reason for the recall. The description is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations – Attempts to describe the product subject to recall and provide product details including the recall date, recall number, or the reason for the recall; however, the description is significantly underdeveloped.

Non-Performance – The description of the product subject to recall is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

ANALYZES WHETHER THE MANUFACTURER WOULD BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IF THE PRODUCT HAD NOT BEEN RECALLED AND HAD CAUSED HARM TO A CONSUMER
Total: 2.50
Distinguished – Offers a complete analysis of whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer. Expertly applies concepts and vocabulary from the text and/or additional scholarly sources.

Proficient – Offers a mostly complete analysis of whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer. Sufficiently applies concepts and vocabulary from the text and/or additional scholarly sources. Minor details are missing.

Basic – Offers a limited analysis of whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer. Partially applies concepts and vocabulary from the text and/or additional scholarly sources. Relevant details are missing.

Below Expectations – Offers an incomplete analysis of whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer. Does not apply concepts and vocabulary from the text and/or additional scholarly sources. Significant details are missing.

Non-Performance – The analysis of whether the manufacturer would be liable for negligence if the product had not been recalled and had caused harm to a consumer is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

DISCUSSES THE NEGLIGENCE ELEMENTS IN RELATION TO THE PRODUCT RECALL
Total: 1.50
Distinguished – Provides a well-structured and highly detailed discussion of all seven of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall.

Proficient – Provides a discussion of all seven of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall. The discussion is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic – Provides a brief discussion of at least six of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall. The discussion is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations – Attempts to provide a discussion of at least six of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall; however, the discussion is significantly underdeveloped.

Non-Performance – The discussion of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2018/Panasonic-Recall…

BUS670.W2A1.05.2015
Description:

Total Possible Score: 10.00

Non-Performance – The description of the product subject to recall is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Proficient – Provides a discussion of all seven of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall. The discussion is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic – Provides a brief discussion of at least six of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall. The discussion is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations – Attempts to provide a discussion of at least six of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall; however, the discussion is significantly underdeveloped.

Non-Performance – The discussion of the negligence elements in relation to the product recall is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

ANALYZES AND APPLIES A RELEVANT CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE IDENTIFIED PRODUCT RECALL
Total: 2.50
Distinguished – Thoroughly analyzes and accurately applies a relevant consumer protection statute from the text in conjunction with the identified product recall, clearly showing the relationship between the statute and the product recall.

Proficient – Analyzes and applies a relevant consumer protection statute from the text in conjunction with the identified product recall, showing the relationship between the statute and the product recall. The analysis or application is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic – Partially analyzes and vaguely applies a relevant consumer protection statute from the text in conjunction with the identified product recall, showing a minimal relationship between the statute and the product recall. The analysis and/or application are underdeveloped.

Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze and apply a relevant consumer protection statute from the text in conjunction with the identified product recall; however, a relationship between the statute and the product recall is not demonstrated. The analysis and application are underdeveloped.

Non-Performance – The analysis and application of a relevant consumer protection statute are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

CRITICAL THINKING: EVIDENCE
Total: 0.50
Distinguished – Employs persuasive information from credible sources to develop an ample analysis or synthesis of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized thoroughly.

Proficient – Employs applicable information from credible sources to develop an analysis of the topic.

Basic – Identifies applicable information from credible sources, but may neglect the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.

Below Expectations – Displays information from external sources, but such information may lack credibility and/or relevance. Neglects the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.