please answer with explanation:)

Tutorial 6: Responsibility The case study you will discuss here is related to the lecture on responsibility. In the lecture, we discussed that you should carefully evaluate the basis of liability in Qubec law on three points- i) act of omission; ii) a consequence, and iii) a cause-effect relation. Case Study: The Pulverizer Super Mulcher Corporation manufactures the Model 1 Pulverizer, a 10-hp chipper/shredder that grinds yard waste into small particles which can be composted and blended into the soil. The device is particularly popular with homeowners, who are interested in reducing the amount of garden waste deposited in landfills. The chipper/shredder has a powerful engine and a rapidly rotating blade that can easily injure operators if they are not careful. During the five years the Model 1 Pulverizer has been sold, there have been 300 reported accidents with operators. The most common accident occurs when the discharge chute gets plugged with shredded yard waste, prompting the operator to reach into the chute to unplug it. When operators reach in too far, the rotating blades can cut off or badly injure their fingers. Pierre who lives in Montreal has bought a Model 1 Pulverizer for processing his garden waste. One day, the machine plugs and Pierre's son puts his hand inside the machine to unplug it. He removes a branch, but when he pulls it out, the blade starts to spin and it cuts his finger. Pierre wants to takes Super Mulcher Corporation to a Qubec court to get compensation. He approaches you because he knows as a professional engineer like you can assist him in getting a compensation claim. 1. Do you think there is act of omission in the Model 1 Pulverizer? Why? 2. Is there a cause-effect relation in what happened to Pierre's son that indicates responsibility by Super Mulcher Corporation? Charlie Burns, President of Super Mulcher, calls a meeting of the engineers and legal staff to discuss ways to reduce legal liability associated with the sale of the Model 1 Pulverizer. The legal staff suggests several ways of reducing legal liability: Put bright yellow warning signs on the Model 1 Pulverizer that say, "Danger! Rapidly rotating blades. Keep hands out when machine is running!" Include the following warning in the owner's manual: "Operators must keep hands away from the rotating blades when machine is in operation." State in the owner's manual that safe operation of the Model 1 Pulverizer requires a debris collection bag placed over the discharge chute. State that operators are not to remove the debris collection bag while the Model 1 Pulverizing is running. If the discharge chute plugs, the owner is instructed to turn off the Model 1 Pulverizer, remove the debris collection bag, replace the debris collection bag, and restart the engine. From operating the Model 1 Pulverizer, Fred, the design engineer, knows the discharge chute has a tendency to plug. Because the machine is hard to restart, there is a great temptation to run the unit without the debris collection bag - and to unplug the discharge chute while the unit is still running. In each of the following scenarios, discuss the various ways Fred attempts to resolve the problem Scenario 1: Fred says nothing to his colleagues about the impracticality of requiring the machine to be run with the debris collection bag. He accepts the legal staff's advice and adds the warning signs to owner's manual instructions. No changes are made in the design of the Model Pulverizer. 1. What is the nature of product liability that Fred is trying to correct? Would this reduce their product liability in Qubec? Scenario 2: Fred suggests to his engineering colleagues that the Model 1 Pulverizer should be re-designed, so it does not plug. His colleagues reply that the company probably cannot afford the expense of re-engineering the Model 1, and they conclude that the legal staff's recommendations should be sufficient. Being dissatisfied, Fred re-designed the Model 1 Pulverizer in his spare time, and solves the plugging problem in an affordable way. 2. What is the nature of product liability that Fred is trying to correct? Would this reduce their liability in Qubec