Manufacturer held liable for product-related death

christiefan915 said:
You of all people should understand. You stated "You're dishonestly trying to equate a faulty product with a product that is used improperly by someone, in which case, the manufacturer is not liable."

Since when was baby powder ever deemed a "faulty product"? And how about the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, the product wasn't "faulty" but the woman still got an award.
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like baby powder may NOW be deemed a "faulty product", and if there is a definite link between it and cancer, the lawsuit is NOT frivolous, damages should be awarded and the product should be made safe or taken off the market. In the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, damages were awarded(if you saw pictures of the injuries that woman suffered, you know why)and they changed the way they made their coffee. I have almost fired guns that I thought might blow apart in my hands, but thought better of it. I don't see those guns around anymore(maybe they're available on the hood rat market, I wouldn't know)the market forces them out. I've owned guns that are almost 100 years old, built like tanks and maintained meticulously, they function perfectly. How could ANYTHING like that be deemed a "faulty product"?
 
callinectes said:
Well, it looks like baby powder may NOW be deemed a "faulty product", and if there is a definite link between it and cancer, the lawsuit is NOT frivolous, damages should be awarded and the product should be made safe or taken off the market.
Click to expand...

Damages have already been awarded.

Is baby powder off the market? Don't think so.


https://www.johnsonsbaby.com/powder/johnsons-baby-powder
 
christiefan915 said:
You of all people should understand. You stated "You're dishonestly trying to equate a faulty product with a product that is used improperly by someone, in which case, the manufacturer is not liable."

Since when was baby powder ever deemed a "faulty product"? And how about the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, the product wasn't "faulty" but the woman still got an award.
Click to expand...

Both parties were injured by the product and there was no misuse of it by them or a third party. I'll understand if you can't see the difference.
 
moon2012 said:
Killing somebody with a gun specifically designed to kill is not ' improper use '. Of course, the manufacturer should be liable- and when the Act is overturned he will be held to account. He will have to adapt and make guns which do not kill people. What would be the fun in that ? - some might say.
Click to expand...

LMFAO. Guns are designed solely to murder people? You're a joke.
 
Watermark is The Enemy said:
So people who sell weapons to warlords and terrorists shouldn't be held liable? That's just improper use of the product, after all, it's not the manufacturers fault that the terrorist they sold it to used it to commit terrorism.
Click to expand...

False comparison. Further, you're talking about a dealer vs. a manufacturer.
 
Legion Troll said:
Are you pretending that this isn't the law of the land?



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text
Click to expand...

I'm calling you a liar.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Do you still contend that gun makers cannot be sued?
 
Konono said:
Both parties were injured by the product and there was no misuse of it by them or a third party. I'll understand if you can't see the difference.
Click to expand...

They're trying to use lawsuits were the product failed or had an inherent risk that they ignored.
Unless the gun misfires, blows up, or something similar; they have no standing, which can be seen in their desperation of repetitive posts.
 
Legion Troll said:
Is something about that statement untrue?

Having legal protection from lawsuits (which gun makers have) doesn't mean they cannot be sued, does it?

I'll understand if you can't explain.
Click to expand...

Of course it is untrue. Other entities besides gun manufactures also enjoy some legal protections. As you can see from law, which you obviously didn't read, their only protected from unforeseeable crimes, other than that, they can be sued just like anyone else. You don't hold a car manufacturer liable for a crime committed with a car, nor a knife manufacturer, so the law is essentially the same for all manufacturers. The only reason a law was made for gun manufacturers is because approximately 30 states were suing them and there were countless other suits against them. I think it should have wound its way to SCOTUS because SCOTUS would have held the same thing.

Your general statement indicated that gun manufacturers cannot be sued.
 
Right said:
Of course it is untrue. Other entities besides gun manufactures also enjoy some legal protections. As you can see from law, which you obviously didn't read, their only protected from unforeseeable crimes, other than that, they can be sued just like anyone else. You don't hold a car manufacturer liable for a crime committed with a car, nor a knife manufacturer, so the law is essentially the same for all manufacturers. The only reason a law was made for gun manufacturers is because approximately 30 states were suing them and there were countless other suits against them. I think it should have wound its way to SCOTUS because SCOTUS would have held the same thing. Your general statement indicated that gun manufacturers cannot be sued.
Click to expand...

I'm not responsible for your inaccurate interpretation of what I posted.
 
Legion Troll said:
I'm not responsible for your inaccurate interpretation of what I posted.
Click to expand...

You are responsible for making a sentence that is clearly ambiguous and unintelligible. Not my fault you can't write a simple sentence to express yourself.

What I interpreted from your sentence is 100% plausible. Learn to write better weaboo.
 
Right said:
You are responsible for making a sentence that is clearly ambiguous and unintelligible. Not my fault you can't write a simple sentence to express yourself. What I interpreted from your sentence is 100% plausible. Learn to write better weaboo.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Of course you did admit that you only have just a little intelligence, so there's that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top