Quote: the G-man said: I agree with the intent of the bill 100%, even if I do not agree with the procedure being used to pass it.
Quote: magicjay said: What are your thoughts on the tobacco industry? Do you believe that the states were correct in seeking to recoup the costs to taxpayers in medical expenses paid by the staes that were attributed to tobacco consumption?
No. People who smoke are responsible for their own safety. What the hell did they THINK that "Surgeon General Warning" on the side of the package meant?
As soon as you create the concept that the state can start suing companies for self-inflicted illnesses in the populace, you start down a road that says no one is responsible for their own behavior.
People get sick from smoking? Sue the tobacco companies. People get sick from drinking? Sue the beer companies. People get sick eating fatty foods? Sue the food companies.
It's nothing but a "mommy state" mentality that looks for a deep pocket to point the finger at, instead of solutions.
Perhaps you could tell me which of the elements of strict liability it fails to meet? Let me refresh your memory:
The plaintiff's injury must have been caused by a "defect" in the product. Thus the manufacturer is not deemed responsible when injury results from an unforeseeable use of its product. The essential elements of a claim based upon an alleged manufacturing defect are:
1. The defendant was the manufacturer or supplier of a product;
2. The product possessed a defect in its manufacture;
3. The defect in manufacture existed when the product left the defendant's possession;
4. The defect in manufacture was a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff's injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
A defect in the manufacture of a product exists if the product differs from the manufacturer's intended result or if the product differs from apparently identical products from the same manufacturer.
DESIGN DEFECT - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The essential elements of a claim based upon an alleged design defect are:
1. The defendant was the manufacturer or supplier of a product;
2. The product possessed a defect in its design;
3. The defect in design existed at the time it left the defendant's possession;
4. The defect in design was a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and
5. Plaintiff's injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
A product is defective in design if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner or if there is a risk of danger inherent in the design which outweighs the benefits of that design.
In determining whether the benefits of the design outweigh such risks the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the gravity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood that such danger would cause damage, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternate design at the time of manufacture, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and the consumer that would result from an alternate design.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
