3 ms·

The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions

by elil17 4y ago

The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions without explicit agreement to as-is terms. If you think the blame falls upon the parents (say, the friend's parents), should you extend that same logic to other cases? What about baby powder talc, thalidomide, and plastic with BPA? Where is the line I think the way we draw that line now is good. Companies have an obligation to provide products that are as safe as reasonably possible and to inform consumers of safety risks when they cannot be avoided. People can be compensated for the harm caused to them when companies fail to do that. The extreme other end, where people have to research product safety for everything they use in order to avoid snake oil and death traps, seems like a huge waste of everyone's time. I would do the same for my child if I had one, and tremendous respect to your wife for doing that for your kid, but I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be. I hope that if someone dies because they run their well-made E-bike into a wall, that's on them, but that no one ever dies because their E-bike has a faulty component. The latter case is what's claimed here and I think that, if that claim is true, that means the parents here should win the case.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
You're absolutely right about legal liability. They have every right to sue. But as to the discussion of who's at fault in terms of preventing the accident, yes, it's the friend's sister's parents. The friend's sister was still too young (13) for that e-bike which the company rated for age 18 and up. I'm not speaking from the standpoint of how the law ought to work. I agree that companies ought to provide products fit for use and fit for purpose. I agree the parents should be able to sue if the product isn't. The helmet being defective is a much worse problem, if that's true. If we're talking about whose job it is to prevent children from getting involved in an accident of this sort in the first place, however; that's on parents.
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> What about baby powder talc You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? > I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it.
- elil17 4y ago
  >You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? Yes. >This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it. Yes.

by elil17 4y ago

slowmovintarget 4y ago

You're absolutely right about legal liability. They have every right to sue. But as to the discussion of who's at fault in terms of preventing the accident, yes, it's the friend's sister's parents. The friend's sister was still too young (13) for that e-bike which the company rated for age 18 and up. I'm not speaking from the standpoint of how the law ought to work. I agree that companies ought to provide products fit for use and fit for purpose. I agree the parents should be able to sue if the product isn't. The helmet being defective is a much worse problem, if that's true. If we're talking about whose job it is to prevent children from getting involved in an accident of this sort in the first place, however; that's on parents.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

> What about baby powder talc You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? > I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it.

elil17 4y ago
>You mean like Johnson & Johnson including asbestos in their talc for decades and paying huge civil penalties for it? Yes. >This can’t happen when maximizing profit is the incentive. Think about it. Yes.