Punitive Damages

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by spooky69

I'm okay with imposing financial penalties against for-profit organizations under the following conditions:

-The damages are scaled to the size of the company (big enough to affect change, small enough to be payable without sending them into bankruptcy)
-Awarded only if there was some sort of demonstrable negligence/maliciousness that "needs" to be punished (failure to do proper safety testing, targeting cigarettes at children)

I know this isn't the issue, but in the class of people who hates the lasseiz faire model of business specifically because history has proven that there needs to be a financial (or otherwise) motivation for getting people to do "beneficial" things that they wouldn't otherwise do. That usually takes the form of rewards for following the rules or penalties for not doing so. I'm sure that many aspects of liability law in America are out of control and need to be fixed, but getting your ass sued off is a pretty good motivator for not doing a bunch of lazy/greedy/evil stuff.

Well... One of the ways that American liability law is broken is that application of your conditions is neither guaranteed nor common. The two cases I referred to (can't say 'cited' as I didn't give proper references) both fall in the "they have GOT to be kidding" camp of judgements.

On the other hand, your closing paragraph touches on the reverse problem. Indeed, for-profit businesses (and individuals, for that matter) often fail to make changes without the threat of either regulation or massive legal liability.

And that tension is why it's easy to point at problems, and really really hard to suggest solutions that won't make things worse.


Xenophon

[nekokami]

On the third hand, my husband is now receiving treatment for a tendon injury (commonly referred to as "tennis elbow") that he received from the deadman switch on our snowblower. Should we sue the manufacturer for designing the deadman switch (a safety feature intended to keep customers from cutting their fingers off) in such a way that it produces injury? If we disable the switch to avoid further stress injury, and he gets injured subsequently because the machine doesn't act as expected, should the company be immune from legal consequence?

Regarding the planes with the 30 year old design problems, is it reasonable to keep a plane in service without continuing to evaluate its suitability according to current engineering knowledge?

Complicated stuff....

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Regarding the planes with the 30 year old design problems, is it reasonable to keep a plane in service without continuing to evaluate its suitability according to current engineering knowledge?

Complicated stuff....

An excellent question about the planes. But note that the manufacturer has no choice about whether or not the planes stay in service. The owner and end-user get to make that decision. It's also worth noting that there are plenty of DC-3s in service around the world (now! 70+ years after they were built!), hauling both cargo and passengers. They stay in service because they are an efficient and reliable choice for certain uses. Just don't try using them in one of the (now documented) flight regimes that are guaranteed to get them into trouble.

Should the manufacturer be liable for design problems that they could not possibly have foreseen at the time of design and manufacture? Especially given that they manufacturer does not have the power to remove the product from service? Whose responsibility should it be?

It's also interesting to note that NASA and the NTSB routinely rent* a DC-3 cargo plane that serves parts of Alaska so that they can study how its structure is holding up for metal fatigue and the like. It's the world leader in both flight hours and take-off-and-landing cycles, so it's a very interesting artifact for studying the long-term performance of various materials.

Xenophon

*It flies commercially all summer. NASA and the NTSB study it most of the winter. The owners get lease payments in the winter when they wouldn't be using it anyway. NASA and the NTSB get data that would be otherwise unavailable. Everybody wins!

[nekokami]

I agree, I wouldn't make the manufacturer liable for an airline or other entity choosing to keep the plane in service. If they continue to sell the planes, though, they should probably be responsible for ensuring that they meet contemporary engineering standards. But I suppose that's not in question (at least, I hope not!)

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

W

Point taken.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Woman sues Victoria's Secret claiming thong injury.

just the facts, ma'am.