Fun Unlimited Inc. was a manufacturer of children's toys and games. For the Christmas season it produced and offered for sale through its retail distribution channels a toy clown doll. The doll was made of fabric and wore a colourful clown suit with several large, bright red buttons down the front. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson purchased one of the clowns as a Christmas gift for their two-year-old granddaughter. The child was delighted with the toy and played with it for many hours. About a week after Christmas the child's mother noticed two of the buttons missing from the front of the clown suit. A thorough search of the house did not turn up the buttons. Later that day, as she supervised the child's play, the mother observed the little girl pulling a button off the clown suit and placing it in her mouth. Before she could reach the child to retrieve it, the button had been swallowed. In the several days that followed, the child had little appetite and showed considerable abdominal distension. When the child's mother took her to a doctor, X-rays were performed that showed the buttons were lodged in her upper intestinal tract, blocking her entire digestive system. Immediate surgery was required to remove the buttons. The child required considerable postoperative care at home, resulting in substantial time lost from work for both parents.
a. Discuss the nature of the legal action which may be taken in this case, including the remedies and damages sought. Also discuss any defences that may be raised and render a decision
b. If Fun Unlimited had discovered the ease with which the buttons could be removed by children and had ordered a recall of the product, how would this affect your answer to (a), if at all?

a. This case explores the principles of negligence in manufacturer's product liability. Although the child did not purchase the toy, a claim against the manufacturer may be brought on her behalf by her parents due to her incapacity. The claim will be founded on the duty owed by the manufacturer to ensure its products are not unsafe or hazardous to end-users who are predominantly children. The breach of this duty occurred in the manufacturer's failure to properly secure the buttons to the doll. The tests of foreseeability and the "reasonable man" apply to determine the standard of care required of a company that produces items which it is, or ought to be aware, will be used by children. Students must use their judgement to determine whether that standard was met.
The parents are entitled to seek damages, both general and special, if they can be shown.
The manufacturer may attempt a defence of contributory negligence on the part of the child's parents. Again, the principles of a reasonable parent and foreseeability would apply to the mother's conduct in permitting the child to continue playing with the toy with the knowledge that the buttons could be easily removed. Furthermore, if it ought to have been foreseeable to a reasonable parent that buttons could be hazardous on a young child's toy, contributory negligence might be established
b. The manufacturer's initiative to recall the toy may serve to show that it exercised a greater standard of care in carrying out its duty. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that such action, even though reasonable in the circumstances, would relieve it of liability entirely where harm has been incurred by a user of the toy. At best it may serve to reduce the amount of damages for which it may be found liable.