4 ms·
Yes, the difference what year it was passed completely invalidates the point. Moreover, this is not about "can't sue in case of national emergency". You can't
by _red 12y ago
Yes, the difference what year it was passed completely invalidates the point.
Moreover, this is not about "can't sue in case of national emergency". You can't sue period.
Other countries don't do this, why the US? Those poor uncivilized europeans with no vaccines.
Do you also drive cars where you can't sue Ford if it explodes?
- Fomite 12y agoThe difference in what year and what act does cast doubt on the authority of your information. And it does limit your tort liability because, after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable. Beyond that, other countries can and sometimes do do this. There's been discussions of limiting liability for Ebola vaccine manufacturers in the UK, because of the rush to market for them.
- _red 12y ago>after a number of suits prior to the act, built on flimsy evidence, the vaccine manufacturing business in the U.S. became unpalatable Thats a funny way to say "big pharma bribed politicians". Its amazing that the US was able to develop any technology, I mean imagine what state we would be in if you could sue car and plane manufacturers. Or if we could sue doctors?
- Fomite 12y agoYou keep using Ford, when we do effectively limit the downside of domestic auto production via bailouts, or doctors, where tort liability is a major issue of discussion.