Stupid lawsuit of the week

[Lew]

First off, banning someone is never the answer, as far as I'm concerned. I hate to see anyone go, even if they are wrong most of the time like Pina.

But second, newsflash- illustration by analogy is not "dumbing down" of a discussion. In this case, I introduced a historical case that shared some commonalities (but not all) of the topic at hand. The original topic was the issue of blind spots on SUV's and similar vehicles, and whether the warning devices that are apparently used in Europe (or are proposed to being used here) would have prevented such accidents from occuring due to those blind spots.

For the record, I never said the parents were idiots or that they got what they deserved or any of that crap. I can't imagine what that would be like, I don't wish it on anyone ever.

But, two things about tragedies: 1) they are not all preventable; and 2) they are not all compensible.

And my initial concern, as respected the case in particular, was whether the company should be liable to the parents for the accident. This is not ordinary negligence law, this involves product liability which is a different animal altogether. And in product liability law, if the plaintiff is to collect, they have to show that the product is unreasonably dangerous in either its design or manufacture.

Obviously the warning alarm would involve the area of product design. Does the failure to include the warning alarm make the vehicle unreasonably dangerous? And in determining the answer to that question, we look at the balancing tests I alluded to earlier. Sorry if that sounds "dumbed down," but that's how product liability law works in the U.S. If you want to "smarten" it up, run for Congress and pass a law that does just that.

Now let me add one further caveat- suppose the warning alarm WAS installed on this particular vehicle, but it failed due to a manufacturing defect. OK in that situation, I have no problem finding the manufacturer liable. Why? Because the parents purchased a vehicle that was represented to do something, which it failed to do, and someone was injured (or killed) because of that failure. Judgment for plaintiff, no problem.

But one more twist- suppose this warning alarm is optional on vehicles, but not standard? Say it adds $1,500 to the cost of the vehicle, and the parents had the option to get it but refused to do so in order to save money. Suppose the same accident occurs. Should the car maker be liable then? I don't know.

[LanDroid]

Sheesh, I've seen quite a few HUMANS that should have back up alarm/klaxons attached to them! [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/party.gif[/img]