The objective of this mini case study is for you to put on your ‘manager hat’ and incorporate tactics from your readings. You completed Chapter 9, which covered Product Liability. You are now equipped to respond by objectively compiling information from a variety of sources to compose a case study mini paper by applying critical thinking strategies.
Requirements:
Cover Page – This is the first page to be included in your paper.
Content pages – These pages will contain your content and fulfill the requirements below.
Complete the minimum word count for each Part (I, II, and III).
Do NOT include the question as part of your word count.
Include your word count at the bottom of each paper section (Part I, II, and III).
NOTE: Submissions totaling 300 words or less will not receive credit.
Quotations and material from other sources must be cited using the current APA format. You must include a Reference page.
Check your work for spelling and grammatical errors.
Be sure to do your own work; do not plagiarize.
3. References page-
In addition to the in-text citations, a Reference page must be included.
A minimum of five (5) different sources is required.
Use academic sources for your paper. (Do not include blogs, social media, opinion pages, or Wikipedia.)
At least three (3) sources must be outside of the materials used in this course (the required textbook).
4. Content:
Fulfill the requirements listed above.
Answer the following questions in 3 separate parts (I, II, and III).
Part I: Statement of the Problem? Provide a brief but accurate overview of the case and a clear statement of the ethical dilemma facing the organization (50–100 words total)
Part II: (300–500 words) Address the questions below. A minimum of 2 relevant sources must be included for each of the 3 questions below. Each of the 3 questions must be answered in a separate paragraph.
Stakeholders – Describe the stakeholders, their concerns, and their importance. Explain the impact of the situation on stakeholders.
Alternatives – Develop a list of at least three significantly different possible ways to resolve the problem you stated earlier. These should be well-developed and detailed. Identify the pros and cons of implementing each alternative and the ethical implications.
Recommendation – Select one of the alternatives and explain why it would be best. Reevaluate the case to identify possible inconsistencies between your recommendation and case facts. Does your alternative sufficiently address the problem in the case? What potential obstacles might crop up? How do stakeholders react, and how will you handle their responses?
Part III – Implementation and Conclusion: (100–150 words total) Present a plan for implementing the recommended alternative, including a timeline. In this section, you want to consider how to make your recommendation a reality. What processes might need to be changed? What may stakeholders need to be approached? Is training necessary? Be specific!
Submit this assignment by 6:00 p.m. (CST) on Tuesday, March 14, 2023. If you submit your assignment before Tuesday, March 14, 2023, you will receive 15% early credit. You are to submit a word document only.
Mini Case Study – Product Liability
Derrick had been an agricultural products representative for just over 19 months. During his initial year of probation and the subsequent months, he had proven himself over and over again for the company. His farm background enabled him to establish a great rapport with his farmer clients. The product line included agricultural-related safety items, primarily for power equipment. During a recent visit with Dave, one of his best clients, Derrick, was told about a farming accident over six years ago. A shutoff valve between a tractor and an anhydrous ammonia tank had broken. Jim, the hired man, had been burned by the spraying of ammonia. Litigation had never been initiated, even though Jim had incurred nearly $20,000 in medical expenses. Upon his return to the office, Derrick pulled the files on the shutoff valve. Although the valve had been removed from the market several years earlier, five similar cases were noted in the file. All had been settled directly with the farmers, and no formal litigation had been filed. The defective valves had been advertised as “totally safe.” Anytime the connectors between the tractor and the ammonia tank were incorrectly disconnected, the shutoff valve was supposed to engage and prevent accidents. Because of the accidents, the sale of the valve ceased. Derrick’s curiosity that nothing had been done for the clients got the best of him, so he went directly to Lee, the company president, about the matter. Upon hearing him out, Lee got up, closed his office door, and gave him the following advice. “Look, the statute of limitations on that product is seven years. We’ll be in the clear if we can hold out just a few more months. What Dave and those other chaps don’t know is their problem. The original product was defective and pulled.” When Derrick started to protest, Lee said, “I’m warning you to keep your mouth shut, and you’ll continue to do well with our company!”
