In this Emerging Issues commentary, Attorney Tracy D. Fitzsimmons discusses the issue of providing product warnings in different languages. Consumers or workers that can't speak English aren't able to comprehend English-only product warnings. Ms. Fitzsimmons examines relevant statutes and case law about the duty to warn. She writes:
"Burgeoning immigration has resulted in unprecedented numbers of non-English-speaking consumers and workers residing in the United States. Keeping these residents safe from toxins and other dangerous products at home and at work presents new challenges. The non-English-speaking consumer or worker is likely unable to comprehend a product warning printed only in English. The duty to protect non-English speakers from dangerous products may already include the duty to warn in their native language."
"The duty to warn is set forth in Section 2(c) of the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Products Liability, which states that a product 'is defective because of inadequate instruction or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.'"
"Counsel advising a client should consider alternatives to language warnings in situations in which a universally-recognized drawing or symbol can easily be used. Interestingly, as early as 1965, at least one court was willing to impose liability upon a manufacturer for labeling its toxic product in English only. The case, Hubbard-Hall Chemical Co. v. Silverman, was one of the first cases to address the need for multilingual warnings."
Subscribers can access the complete commentary on lexis.com. Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 10 pages)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase the Emerging Issues Analysis content through our lexisONE Research Packages.
Tracy Fitzsimmons has practiced law for almost ten years in the area of civil litigation, with an emphasis in product liability. She completed her undergraduate studies in Law and Society and in Spanish at Purdue University and earned her J.D. from Villanova University School of Law. While at Villanova, she won the 40th annual Anthony Reimel Moot Court competition.
I have a case study that may be of interest to you and the law community.
In December of 2009, I wrote a letter to Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid with this subject line:
Re: Victim of Crime--Federal Protection/State Department
"As a resident of the District of Nevada, and a victim of Federal crime, I am requesting your assistance to investigate my situation....."
The response letter to Senator Harry Reid, written on my behalf, from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement dated March 11, 2010 stated:
"After reviewing your correspondence, we determined that Ms. Knisely's request is within the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)."
I was never enrolled in the Victim of Crime or the Federal Witness Protection program.
My son Adrian was never enrolled in the Victim of Crime or the Federal Witness Protection program.
Enrollment in these programs under the U.S. Department of Justice would have been very helpful. Can you guess how many laws were violated due to non-enrollment?
Ronald Weich, the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs has not provided case management of the situation. He has failed to return my phone calls.
My situation is not unusual. However, I believe it may be the first time it was ever caught at this high of a level.
National Security Agency, Department of Defense, Case + Free FOIA Case.