Read the following discussion and write a paper on it:

One of the most important concepts of the law is the notion that if one party damages another in a noncriminal context, then the aggrieved party is entitled to restitution to make him or her whole. In a legal context, making another party whole (note: this is a fairly common term that you will hear again and again in a legal context) is the entire purpose of tort law. In other words, a judge or jury will attempt to determine exactly what needs to be done when an aggrieved party can demonstrate damages, and what those damages should be in order to return a party to the state that he or she was prior to the alleged action.

The reason why torts is a crucial element in a business context is because virtually all commercial enterprises deal with the public at some point, and by providing products, services, or any sort of commercially-relevant activities to the public, this exposes commercial concerns to lawsuits and litigation even when completely unintentional things inflict damages to ordinary consumers. As you maneuver through the unit this week, be sure to keep in mind that there is a significant difference between tort law and criminal law. Criminal penalties only attach to individuals with an illegal motive or with criminal negligence. Regarding tort law, society recognizes that sometimes businesses, out of ordinary negligence or ignorance, may cause injury to another party with no intent whatsoever to harm. Nonetheless, the law imposes standards by which such injured parties can seek recompense via the American judicial system.

Of particularly importance is strict liability, which is one of the strongest standards in the law. This unit will explain the contours of strict liability, but keep in mind as you read the text this week that in very few instances does American law mandate the imposition of strict liability upon anyone. If strict liability is imposed on a party, it is because there is a serious and critical public policy reason for doing so. For example, products that seriously maim another with demonstrable negligence can fall under the strict liability standard.

More commonly, product liability is something that many businesses will encounter at some point. When a commercial party submits a product or a service into the stream of commerce, then the commercial entity that created the product or service is responsible, within certain boundaries, for any injuries or damages caused by that product to anyone down the line. Courts will always look at causation to determine whether or not the product or service did, in fact, cause the alleged injury and whether the injured party did anything that may have aggravated the injury or worsened the results of the injury. In both strict liability and product liability, it is vital to understand that society has developed these standards by which commercial parties can be found liable, not because there is any intent to hamstring the role of commercial organizations, but rather to recognize that consumers are entitled to baseline protections, especially when companies and organizations are aware of the risks of the products and do little, if anything, to ameliorate or to address those problems prior to submitting them into the stream of commerce.

Another key factor covered in this unit is the notion of consumer protection. Consumer protection in the United States is largely dependent upon the political winds in Washington, DC. Organizations and agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission are only as strong and as effective as those in the White House or Congress intend for those organizations to be in the performance of their duties. Indeed, federal and state agencies involved in consumer protection are dependent upon annual appropriations that govern the size of their staff and scope of their budgets—and therefore the reach of their responsibilities and ability to address serious consumer product issues.

Contemplate the role of the global economy as it impacts the legal environment of consumer protection. When a consumer in the United States is injured by a product manufactured in China or India, it is vastly more difficult for a litigant in the United States to obtain damages from a party that is located in Mumbai or Shanghai, as opposed to Minneapolis or Seattle. The courts have been struggling to determine ways to more effectively streamline these cases so that litigants can receive recompense, but with the increasingly international component to American consumerism, this is a complicating factor that courts around the country grapple with on a daily basis.

As you might imagine, there are many Americans that feel that tort law—and the judicial system in general—unduly exposes businesses to the reach of frivolous lawsuits. In the eyes of many ordinary Americans, legions of so-called professional litigants seek to obtain damages from well-intentioned companies who do no harm in the marketplace. However, in a more global context, it is important to realize that with millions of products that enter the stream of commerce, the law recognizes a special duty on the part of manufacturers and retailers to not only understand the risks and potential harms of those products but also to implement sufficient warnings, safeguards, and protections for consumers.

Whether you agree or disagree with the vitality of the judicial system in enforcing consumer protection laws, you may wish to see it in a public policy context and also to understand the vital role that politics plays in the strength of consumer protections and in the resolution of tort lawsuits in the judicial system.