 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
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 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2004 11:39
ACK! 
.
. A few points:
|