Pure Idiocy - The American Tort System

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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

Yes it is. If my torque wrench explodes because I exceed the rated design threshold be 1% then the product is not safe.

Overengineering is the standard and has been since engineering became a profession. It is the norm, it is expected, and it is required.

[KrazyHorse]

"idiot-proof" might be impossible. "Reasonably idiot-proof" is not. This gun wasn't. One simple change (which seems fairly evident) would have saved this boy's spine. Not putting it in there is unreasonable.

[The Mad Monk]

...so my truck should be able to handle 300 mph easily?

COOL!!!

[KrazyHorse]

Does your truck explode if it doesn't go 300 miles per hour?

[The Mad Monk]

It hasn't exploded yet.

[KrazyHorse]

Keep me updated.

[The Mad Monk]

Check.

[notyoueither]

Exploded yet?

[The Mad Monk]

Nope. Not even smoking.

[notyoueither]

We could fill this thread with the equivalent of a cell phone commercial.

'Ya hear me now?'

[Pekka]

Ted, oh come on, MMA fighters fight in the ring. The fact, that they fight in the ring with MMA rules makes them MMA fighters, not the other way around. There are no innocent bystanders .

And yeah, hold the babysitter responsible. Accidentally pulled the trigger? And accidentally also pointed the gun at the kid at the same time? That's just bad.

[Berzerker]

I will say this, though - you build me an idiot proof anything, and I'll find you an idiot to defeat it.

This is bizarre, the mother tells the babysitter to unload a gun they bought for protection? If the mother knew the babysitter was a novice when instructing him to unload the gun, why would she even tell him to take the gun out of a drawer much less unload it? I wonder if that all really happened? I suspect the babysitter just picked it up, "accidently" pointed it at a kid and pulled the trigger. Doh! It certainly happens...

I'd make a nasty lawyer, juries would hate me for thinking these people would conspire to get money out of this. Faced with enormous bills for their kid's care how many could resist holding the hand of the lawyers in that deep pocket?

I'm a bit torn on this, I see culpability from all 3 parties, including the manufacturer. They had a problem - a design flaw - and fixed it by making the gun less safe. But apparently this is legal, so how can the courts allow a lawsuit? Well, I've long argued laws should be ignored at times for the sake of justice but the responsibility is way out of whack in this case and it's no coincidence who is getting whacked the hardest.

[Berzerker]

This is almost as bad as the tobacco lawsuits.

Uh, I smoked tobacco for 40 years and it wasn't good for me that whole time?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see my side of the argument has been adequately argued by KH and Asher . A few points:

Ah, the spirit of the law, and all that.

Um.. what? Negligence has nothing to do with 'spirit of the law'. It is something which is the letter of the law. You must exercise reasonable care. Furthermore, this does not mean the person must see ALL forseeable consequences but only those which were the proximate cause of the injury.

I seriously suggest you get some law books on torts, because you seriously have no clue.

They had a problem - a design flaw - and fixed it by making the gun less safe. But apparently this is legal, so how can the courts allow a lawsuit?

Simply because your change makes your gun legal does not immunize you from charges of negligence. You can have a 'legal' product and yet not exercize reasonable care. This happens all the time, though most of the products are simply removed from the market when complaints come in and don't really get to lawsuits.

[KrazyHorse]

According to DF and Berz the law should provide you with a formula to build every product in existence. If it doesn't then you can't be held responsible...