No, someone else went full-retard a few posts earlier.
I also don’t disagree with tort reform, I’m just presenting an argument and attempting to shed a little light on the product liability process. Agree or disagree, it is what it is.
correct me if I’m wrong here but:
Your argument seems to be that within our legal system a good “expert witness” in combination with a lack of a warning label can and should win a court case for just about anyone regaurdless of whether or not the defendants product (or existance of a warning label) would have changed the outcome of the situation.
My/our argument is that the legal system is flawed and only creates a sue happy population covered in warning labels which prevents small companies from starting up because they don’t want to risk the liability or because they can’t afford the expensive legal team required to (attempt to) protect them from these ridiculous cases.
floating through my head right now are dozens of examples of personal experiences in which these lawsuits have prevented something good from being created or have ruined something good.
on the other hand I can’t think of a single example that I read a warning label and it prevented me from harm
The bats in question where also nitrogen filled, I still have mine that I could use my league play for only one year. It has to do with less deformation of the barrel.
Edit: Basically benefits by increasing the trampoline effecting by decreasing compressibility.
Mafdark, you’re wrong. I don’t feel that winning a products liability case is as easy as you suggest.
Yes, America is known for being a very litigious society. So what? Is it too much to ask a company to be aware of the dangers of using their product and in turn make the end consumer aware of these dangers as well? Is it too much to ask a manufacturer to ensure that their product is safe in the first place and free from design or manufacturing defects?
You only have to look as far as China if you want to see how lax manufacturing standards effect consumers.
“So what”? there are so many things that people/companies cannot do because there is no way to protect themselves from these lawsuits. I work for a family owned company and there are dozens of products they won’t even produce because they’d rather not take the risk and just do something else. These are products that would be beneficial to everybody…
how about my garage as an example, I lease space in my shop for people to work on their project cars… I can’t get a loan nor can I get insurance because of retarded lawsuits like this.
and if it wasn’t so easy to win these then how can a family win a decision against a company as large as Louisville Slugger for building a product that did exactly what it was built to do.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
The world is a dangerous place, but putting a danger warning on everything is not going to make it any better and the question that has been asked already in this thread is “where does it end?” warning stakes in grass stating that you may be allergic to it? this building may have bees which can sting and cause death! staring at this computer screen can harm your eyes! catching a ball with this glove may sting your hand!
can’t we please just take the warning labels off of everything… the kid that eats too many marbles, doesn’t grow up to have kids of his own…
We need warning labels… how else will I know not to iron my clothes while I’m still wearing them?
That’s capitalism and opportunity cost in a properly functioning market.
You don’t seem to understand the OP.
YOU don’t understand. Its a bat, a batter uses it to hit a ball. but now it must have a warning label for doing that better than its competitive products.
That’s NOT capitalism.
edit, you really make me question if you beleive the shit you’re typing or if your just trolling. If its the former, I am honestly worried about the twisted ethics they are teaching in law school.
You really seem bent about this. What is unethical or wrong about anything I’ve said?
Please try rereading the OP. The lawsuit is not about the bat performing better than other bats. The issue is that the bat was inherently more dangerous than other bats and the manufacturer did nothing to inform the end consumer of this. The manufacturer was negligent, NOT in building a better bat, but instead for not warning people that it was in-fact a better bat.
And you don’t understand why I am “bent up” over this? :picard:
I’ll copy and paste what I’ve already posted:
Your argument seems to be that within our legal system a good “expert witness” in combination with a lack of a warning label can and should win a court case for just about anyone regaurdless of whether or not the defendants product (or existence of a warning label) would have changed the outcome of the situation.
My/our argument is that the legal system is flawed and only creates a sue happy population covered in warning labels which prevents small companies from starting up because they don’t want to risk the liability or because they can’t afford the expensive legal team required to (attempt to) protect them from these ridiculous cases.
OMG THIS COUNTRY IS THE WORST
EVERYONE SUCKS NOW! BUT THEY DEFINITELY DIDN’T BEFORE!
KILL EVERYONE ON A JURY!
oops forgot the purple fixedsys font
mafdark, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Happy Halloween everyone!
Tort reform is so past due. It has killed so so many industries, along with my chosen one, Aviation.
Deep Pockets will always have some shit bags hands in them trying to hit the courthouse lottery.
Its too bad that most of congress and our president suck off the fat dick of lawyers and won’t do anything about it.
Look at the so called healthcare reform. Tort reform is left out, and will never be tackled until the industry is dead. Aviation was killed from this bullshit, and now after laws and the fact that ever new planes price is literally doubled to carry the liability insurance on it for the aircrafts life, we are alive, but forever on life support.
I considered posting that too. Feel free to explain that one to us.
edit: why wasn’t the water company sued?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4PHcSvMF8pPe_CpIRZejl7OD1vgD9BLOG0O0
http://www.abajournal.com/news/record_87.4m_fine_for_bp_refinery_15_died_in_2005_explosion/
The radio contest suit doesn’t need explanation by me. If you want to know more about it go hit Google.
I can’t recall what’s in the book, but there’s one by the title of “Death at the Ballpark” that references a 2000ish study on that very issue. I’m sure it’s in there.
IIRC, 15% more kinetic energy, which is a significant number.
on edit:
Not that I believe its significant enough in this case - a wooden bat belting the ball would have likely produced the same outcome. A shot to the temple is a shot to the temple.
Yes.