3 ms·
That's an old argument by corporations against liability. Should they not be fully liable? It should discourage them from making unsafe products. If it's not e
by mmooss 8mo ago
That's an old argument by corporations against liability. Should they not be fully liable?
It should discourage them from making unsafe products. If it's not economical for them to make safe products, it's good that they go bankrupt and the economic resources - talent, money - go to someone else. Bankruptcy and business failure are just as fundamental to capitalism as profit.
- nickff 8mo agoThese product-liability lawsuits are out of control; perhaps this judgement is directionally correct, but the punitive damages seem insane. This reminds me of the lawsuits which drove Instant Pot bankrupt, where the users were clearly doing very stupid things, and suffered injuries because they were able to physically overpower the safety mechanisms on their pressure-cookers.
- mmooss 8mo ago> These product-liability lawsuits are out of control Businesses also claim that, all the time. We need some evidence. I remember doctors claiming that malpractice lawsuits were out of control; research I read said that it wasn't an economic issue for doctors and that malpractice was out of control.
- nickff 8mo agoI invite you to read both the claims and the judgements related to the Instant Pot lawsuits yourself; they're all quite clear, and you can come to your own decision about how reasonable they are. My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock, after which the lid (predictably) flew off, and they were injured (mostly by the hot steam and bits of food). I think it's ridiculous for people to expect safety mechanisms to be impossible to bypass, but maybe you disagree!
- judahmeek 8mo ago> My read is that people overpowered the safety interlock And you obviously think doing so was next to impossible therefore Instant Pot shouldn't be liable. But what evidence do you have of the difficulty of bypassing that specific safety mechanism?
- nickff 8mo agoI've owned and used two of the affected models (for ~6 years in total), and also read the version of events presented by the plaintiffs (in their claims), as well as the judges' view of what happened. I originally read the documents to understand whether the unit I own is safe, and believed in its safety strongly enough that I have continued to use it.
- judahmeek 8mo agoSo you've never actually tried to bypass the safety mechanism to determine the difficulty of doing so? Because I'd bet you that the jury certainly did.
- nickff 8mo agoI’d make that bet, because you obviously don’t know much about pressure cookers or the law. Juries hear expert testimony; they do not perform independent investigations. I have inadvertently tested the safety mechanisms, and they are quite secure. I will not do what plaintiffs say they did, because it is so incredibly stupid.
- judahmeek 8mo agoYou're right. Google has informed me that my expectation that juries could independently test safety mechanisms is completely wrong.
- robotnikman 8mo agoMy thought when it comes to self driving vehicles though, is how do you determine what is considered unsafe here. I'm not sure about Tesla's autopilot, but Waymo for example has an excellent safety record that is better than most drivers when you compare the statistics. And yet, they are still entirely unable to avoid accidents, as mistakes and unpredictable situations happen. Maybe we should be considering a self driving vehicle safe if it has been proven to drive more safely than the average driver? It is something I think that should be considered. Should they compensate the victims of such accidents? Of course. Should they pay out the equivalent of winning the lottery? That seems a bit much.