3 ms·
Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
by artificialLimbs 3y ago
Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
- PeterisP 3y agoLiability adds a strong bias towards inaction and it's in society's interests to avoid that. Like, pretty much everything has some side-effects, and if (for example) you have the choice between doing nothing and having a million people die and doing something for which everyone is certain that that will save that million people but on average might kill ten other people, then asserting liability effectively means saying that you shouldn't do that thing, because you won't be liable for the former million deaths but will be liable for the latter ten ones. So if the society wants people to choose the former option, they shouldn't be liable for such consequences.
- chimprich 3y agoYes, in order to save tens of millions of lives globally - which is exactly what happened. You really don't want to discourage that. But leaving aside pragmatics, you're assuming that the manufacturers wouldn't be liable. If they'd e.g. hid bad results from some study, they'd presumably still be criminally liable.