3 ms·
It usually has something to do with willfully hiding evidence that the product is inherently unsafe and avoiding safety protocols that would save lives. The can
by fnordpiglet 3y ago
It usually has something to do with willfully hiding evidence that the product is inherently unsafe and avoiding safety protocols that would save lives. The canonical case in my mind is the Ford Pinto. They knew the flaws in the design existed but valued the cost to fix them greater than the societal cost of deaths caused by the flaws. You find these in a lot of cases like this, big tobacco, Johnson and Johnson, Purdue, etc, often have essentially evil knowing decisions to hide safety issues with their product.
Cars (and to a lesser degree guns) are pretty well regulated and basically as long as you follow the spirit of the regulations and engage above board with regulators you’ll be ok. It’s a mutually agreed upon risk management between the public and the companies. There are definitely cases where a danger is known and thought acceptable and the law or regulation shifts, and you’re protected to some degree as long as you were in compliance and weren’t hiding an otherwise unknown risk. Likewise there are things you discover later and as long as you act on it in a forthright way you’re ok.
But risk management isn’t about avoiding all risks. It’s about balance, and being rigorously transparent.
- singularity2001 3y agoHow many years after the merger with Bayer can the merger be rolled back because of hidden evidence and the enormous damages?