Quote: magicjay38 said: Sorry, but my argument is that a prudent person could forsee the consequences of their action. GM cannot be expected to forsee that PGP is a crazy asshole that drives Hummers over pedestrians.
Are you saying that after 100 years of automotive manufacturing and selling that the concept of a car crashing and causing property damage, injury, and even death is unforseeible to GM, Ford, or Chevy?
They must have never of heard of James Dean, Ted Kennedy, and countless other incidents that, according to your extremely broad interpretation of neglegience, they should be held legally accountable for.
Apples and oranges, doc. If the injuries of and deaths are a result of some negligent act on the part of automakers, then they are indeed, negligent and liable. Take Firestone tires as an example. Firestone made the defective tires but Ford, et al, failed to notify customers and recall vehicles in a timely manner. They were liable for the injuries, too. That goddamn prudent man rule popping up again. That is what the courts found.
I am argueing that innocent third parties should not suffer as a result of the commerce in arms. Why are you willing to pay higher taxes so that arms makers earn greater profits?
A special note to PenWing: Legal mumbo jumbo is what the rules are all about. Deal with it.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."John Stuart MillAmerica is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.Oscar WildeHe who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
