Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Except, again, the person didn't die, so Man-2 is impossible.

ACK!

I don't care. Just because the idiot got "lucky" and only paralyzed him for life, doesn't change the fact that he fired a ****ing gun through a kid's head and into his spine, something that causes death more often than not.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
KH,



But by not specificying "reasonable precautions", you are forced to infer (ie, guess at) what sort of reasonable precautions the law refers to. Does it mean EVERY forseeable issue, regardless of cost? I certainly hope not. Does it mean to make a product that is impossible to hurt yourself with? That is an unreasonable expectation.

No, as I stated before the jury is supposed to decide what is reasonable. Here's a fair starting point: are you at least following industry standards? Is everybody else's product safer than yours? If so, get back to the drawing board.

I'll point out again that it seems quite reasonable to assume the safety was off when the babysitter picked up the gun in the first place, which would even further tell me that the manufacturer bears no liability for what happened.

There is such a thing as split liability. We already discussed this. Just because I abuse a product doesn't absolve the manufacturer of responsibility. If everybody else's product would have resisted the abuse and yours wouldn't then you are in deep trouble.

And then we're back to your guessing game from before. It's really not fair. If you have to pass a law, for God's sake be specific.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jaguar

I don't care. Just because the idiot got "lucky" and only paralyzed him for life, doesn't change the fact that he fired a ****ing gun into a kid's spine.

Except Man-2 requires someone to die.

I'm not sure if they have an attempted Manslaughter or not.

You can't be charged with Grand Theft for stealing a candy bar.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

dp.

ACK!

[Jaguar]

Manslaughter, by definition, isn't attempted. If it were, it would be murder.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, as far as I know this has been the standard for negligence since time immemorial. As an engineer you have certain professional responsibilities. These cannot be fully enumerated or else we would have no need for engineers, David.

If you are remiss in these responsibilities you will be held liable. Through civil courto or, in the case of gross negligence through criminal court.

[The Mad Monk]

Hang on -- the company is 10% liable, and owes 24 million?

So the kid was awarded a quarter billion?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Manslaughter, by definition, isn't attempted. If it were, it would be murder.

Manslaughter, by definition, requires death:

The unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. Can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. Or involuntary, like when someone is killed unintentionally as a result of someone else performing another unlawful act or negligently performing a lawful act.

ACK!

[David Floyd]

No, as I stated before the jury is supposed to decide what is reasonable.

I understand that, but again, a jury doesn't come into play until after a lawsuit has been filed, and a jury decision isn't just a slap on the wrist that says "Don't do this again". There can be severe penalties for not guessing the right thing.

There is such a thing as split liability. We already discussed this. Just because I abuse a product doesn't absolve the manufacturer of responsibility. If everybody else's product would have resisted the abuse and yours wouldn't then you are in deep trouble.

I don't see why. The manufacturer shouldn't have to design the product with abuse in mind - hell, that's what disclaimers and common sense are for, and operating instructions. In any case, if the safety was already off when the babysitter picked up the gun, don't you think that would change the scenario even more?

[David Floyd]

If you are remiss in these responsibilities you will be held liable. Through civil courto or, in the case of gross negligence through criminal court.

And my point is simply that, logically speaking, the design of the gun did not contribute to the actual cause of what happened, which was the babysitter picking up a gun, attempting to unload it in an unsafe manner, while pointing it at a person and talking on the phone at the same time, with a pretty good possibility that the safety was already off when he picked it up.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't see why. The manufacturer shouldn't have to design the product with abuse in mind

WRONG

YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER BEEN AN ENGINEER, NOR WORKED IN A LAB WITH DANGEROUS EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL

ENGINEERS DESIGN ALL PRODUCTS WITH ABUSE IN MIND

[KrazyHorse]

In things which can be easily quantified (such as maximum load), which are accessible to the general public and in which failures will likely be catastrophic (causing death or severe injury) the safety factor is FIVE

Elevators which say maximum occupancy 800 pounds are designed to lift 4000 pounds. You could hitch your car to the bottom of the elevator and it would not fail.

Allowing a user to unload with the safety on is no less reasonable a precaution than that.

[David Floyd]

YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER BEEN AN ENGINEER, NOR WORKED IN A LAB WITH DANGEROUS EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL

ENGINEERS DESIGN ALL PRODUCTS WITH ABUSE IN MIND

No, I'm not an engineer. But that doesn't mean I can't talk about the law as I feel it should relate to engineering, it just means I'm not qualified to tell you HOW to build something.

Notice that I didn't assert that manufacturer's DON'T design products with abuse in mind, only that I don't see why they should HAVE to. Include an instruction manual, a disclaimer, and some safety tips, combine with common sense, and make sure your product isn't defective, especially defective to the degree that proper usage will hurt someone (except in the case of a firearm being used for self defense, obviously). In my mind, once those conditions are fulfilled, the manufacturer has done it's part, and questions of negligence/liability move to the operator of the product.

That's the way I see it, from my standpoint of personal responsibility.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, I'm not an engineer. But that doesn't mean I can't talk about the law as I feel it should relate to engineering, it just means I'm not qualified to tell you HOW to build something.

It does, actually. Products are designed with enormous safety factors and ridiculous amounts of idiot-proofing. You obviously don't understand how much effort goes into making things "safe". When it comes to inherently dangerous products like chainsaws, guns or cars this effort is doubled (or at least should be).

A gun design is no place to skimp. This guy skimped. Now he's bitten the bullet.

[David Floyd]

Products are designed with enormous safety factors and ridiculous amounts of idiot-proofing. You obviously don't understand how much effort goes into making things "safe".

I understand this to be the case, and as a consumer, I have no problem with it. I have no problem with the cost of such engineering being passed onto me, for that matter.

The problem I have is the courts. Obviously, you can admit that "over-engineering" a product for safety is not, strictly speaking, required to make a product safe. In other words, "idiot proof" is different from "perfectly safe". By "perfectly safe", I simply mean that a reasonable person is able to operate a product in its proper manner without being harmed. If someone decides to operate a product improperly or unsafely, that doesn't make the product unsafe, it simply means the user is being unsafe - see the difference?

The courts, apparently, have redefined "safe" to mean "idiot proof", and I think that's both unreasonable and unfair.

Now, I'm going to bed - we can pick this up tomorrow, assuming of course that it's still on topic