Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[KrazyHorse]

Negligence is not restricted to things that the law says you have to do, Floyd.

Negligence encompasses all the things that you as an engineer/doctor/construction worker should have reasonably done

There is no equation which can tell you who was negligent and who wasn't because federal safety regulations are not by any means perfect. Even if you follow them to the letter you can be held to have been negligent.

[David Floyd]

No I'm not.

As far as I know there are no federal or provincial regulations mandating the specific design and safety requirements of the machines. There are certainly none that mandate what precautions must be built in to prevent that type of accident.

That being the case, I can't imagine the manufacturer being held liable - I certainly wouldn't vote that way if I were on a jury.

[Berzerker]

I blame the designer, not the manufacturer.

To design a gun where you have to remove the safety to disarm it (and make it even more safe) is approaching the point of silliness.

I agree it's a bad design unless there's some peculiarity that prevents guns being loaded and unloaded with the safety off and I doubt that, but not nearly as bad as what the babysitter did. The lawyers went after the deepest pockets and tried to lay as much blame as they could on those pockets.

No it doesn't

Let me tell you about where my girlfriend works

She's a medical physicist at a hospital in Montreal. She spends a lot of her day around machines designed to irradiate cancer patients.

To turn on any of the machines there are 6 sets of interlocks which prevent her from accidentally getting dosed by some idiot, despite the fact that the only people with access to the control room have undergone at least 3 years of training as radiological technicians.

Compare this with guns sold to the general public.

Now imagine that the designer of the machine made the design such that my girlfriend had to engage all 6 interlocks to reposition one of the machines and some idiot turned on the thing (despite the fact that she could be seen via video monitor. Is the manufacturer responsible? Hell yes.

Krazyhorse, I don't understand the question. Why would the manufacturer be responsible if 6 interlocks need to be engaged to reposition the machine? Can you deal with this specific issue and not generate smoke with some "analogy"?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And that's part of the problem I have. The design was not illegal, and the design was not even unsafe. To be unsafe, the design would have to cause the gun either a)to go off by itself, or b)not to perform to specs in some other way resulting in actual or potential harm. Neither was the case. The gun did not go off by itself, nor did it fail to perform as every other gun performs.

This is complete BS

Just because:

a) your product conforms to all present regulations
b) it did not malfunction

does not make it immune from lawsuits

Nor should it.

Civil courts are there for a reason, David.

If you did not do what could reasonably be expected of you in your professional capacity then you are liable

[David Floyd]

Negligence is not restricted to things that the law says you have to do, Floyd.

Negligence encompasses all the things that you as an engineer/doctor/construction worker should have reasonably done

Ah, the spirit of the law, and all that. Funny thing, though, is that anytime a "strict constructionist", such as myself, tries to use the "spirit/intent of the Constitution" as an argument, the leftists cry "Foul!"

In any case, I just can't agree that the gun manufacturer was negligent. The gun functioned properly to specs, and any harm that resulted was the product of the personal irresponsibility of the babysitter, and, to a lesser degree, the parents (although I don't think the parents should be legally liable, either). Just as federal regulations can't predict every possible scenario, neither can manufacturers, and if you argue that the burden should be on the manufacturer, I'll just respond that you're wrong, and it should be on the government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That being the case, I can't imagine the manufacturer being held liable - I certainly wouldn't vote that way if I were on a jury.

Then you would be remiss in your duty as a juror.

The law does not define negligence in that pedantic way. Even in an industry where there are no regulations you can be held liable if you are not reasonably careful.

This man violated his duty as a gun designer to make the product as idiot-proof as possible. He has been held liable.

[David Floyd]

If you did not do what could reasonably be expected of you in your professional capacity then you are liable

Then that same argument should be applicable against the government in failing to pass laws, that could be reasonably expected to prevent the problem.

But I don't think that the issue of the way a gun is loaded/unloaded can be a negligence issue at all, unless the design requires you to point the gun at yourself or another, or if the design results in the gun going off on its own. Neither is the case, hence, I can't see any liability, except for the babysitter.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I agree it's a bad design unless there's some peculiarity that prevents guns being loaded and unloaded with the safety off and I doubt that, but not nearly as bad as what the babysitter did. The lawyers went after the deepest pockets and tried to lay as much blame as they could on those pockets.

The gun HAS to have the safety off to load and unload it.

They had to remove the ability to load/unload with the safety on, because it caused the cheap gun to jam.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Ah, the spirit of the law, and all that. Funny thing, though, is that anytime a "strict constructionist", such as myself, tries to use the "spirit/intent of the Constitution" as an argument, the leftists cry "Foul!"

This is not the spirit of the law; this is the letter of the law.

Negligence has occurred when the jury decides it has occurred, given the definiton of being remiss in taking reasonable precautions.

Juries are there for a reason. It would be impossible for the law to spell out exactly what safety features must be built into every product. The civil courts are the final arbiters of what is safe and what isn't.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then that same argument should be applicable against the government in failing to pass laws, that could be reasonably expected to prevent the problem.

Don't be ridiculous. The government cannot reasonably perfectly regulate every industry. Professionals in each industry are responsible for what they do irrespective of the government telling them to do it.

[David Floyd]

KH,

Then you would be remiss in your duty as a juror.

No I wouldn't. My duty as a juror is to make a fair decision based on the evidence - I don't, technically speaking, even have to make a decision in accordance with the law. Jury nullification is quite legal, and used more often than some would think.

The law does not define negligence in that pedantic way. Even in an industry where there are no regulations you can be held liable if you are not reasonably careful.

I've already addressed this point several times. In my mind, negligence requires what I've already stated above, and I can't see any negligence on the part of the gun manufacturer.

This man violated his duty as a gun designer to make the product as idiot-proof as possible.

Again, better idiot proofing simply leads to better idiots. And as I pointed out above, EVEN IF the gun was designed to be loaded/unloaded with the safety on or off, many people (I'd suspect even many people I'm talking to now) would still want to hold the gun manufacturer liable, for the ultimate reason that they simply don't like guns.

[Tuberski]

Plus the owner of the company wants to sell everything to his current plant manager.

He's sleaze.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Tub,

They had to remove the ability to load/unload with the safety on, because it caused the cheap gun to jam.

By the way, this brings up another interesting point. You get what you pay for - if you buy a cheap TV, don't be surprised when it breaks down next year, probably right after the warranty expires. Is the manufacturer obligated to repair/replace your TV? Of course not - you paid for a cheap TV and that's exactly what you got.

KH,

This is not the spirit of the law; this is the letter of the law.

Negligence has occurred when the jury decides it has occurred, given the definiton of being remiss in taking reasonable precautions.

You ARE invoking the "spirit of the law" argument, because you are asserting that even though the law doesn't SPECIFICALLY cover every incident, it IMPLIES "reasonable precautions", which, in many cases remain unstated. That is a classic "Spirit of the law"-type argument.

The civil courts are the final arbiters of what is safe and what isn't.

OK, and my point is that, in this case, they were wrong. The root problem was the idiocy of the babysitter, not the design of the gun.

Don't be ridiculous. The government cannot reasonably perfectly regulate every industry.

Exactly, just like each industry cannot reasonable perfect each product to rule out the possibility of an idiot hurting themselves or another. Sure, the product can't just explode on its own, but that simply is not what happened in this case.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Again, better idiot proofing simply leads to better idiots. And as I pointed out above, EVEN IF the gun was designed to be loaded/unloaded with the safety on or off, many people (I'd suspect even many people I'm talking to now) would still want to hold the gun manufacturer liable, for the ultimate reason that they simply don't like guns.

It might suprise you to find out that, I like shooting pistols. I'm against further gun control.

I don't own a gun however. I also think the country would be better off if they were illegal to own.

But it won't and shouldn't happen.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

Tub,

Plus the owner of the company wants to sell everything to his current plant manager.

So?