3 ms·

Do you have any references for the equipment manufacturer's liability? I find it hard to believe your point as written.

• shagie 3y ago
  Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY Pay close attention to the standards section and the verdict allocation of case study #1. > Farmer, arguably the person most at fault, is essentially immune from liability. This would be true in most states due to Workers Comp > Jury cannot attribute % of fault to Gonzales because he used Employer's equipment. This would not be true in most states. > Jury wishing to give Gonzales "something" has only Bush Hog and Massey Ferguson to fault. Cannot do a % reduction for fault of Farmer or Gonzales
  • dvdkon 3y ago
    Thanks for the link, but I still think there's enough nuance in the court system (in any country) to recognise that a manufacturer shouldn't always be held liable for a system just because their logo is on it. There's no law dictating that manufacturers have a duty to make farming equipment impervious to mechanics' failures, and unless there's a clear indication that courts will interpret some law this way, I wouldn't bet on it. Even in this case, one of the lines of argument seems to have been that the manufacturer was aware of pre-existing safety issues and injuries, yet did not recall the product or adjust its design. That's certainly different than a one-off unauthorised modification blowing up.