I used to be in the motorcycle accessories business to help pay for my racing expenses. Product liability insurance for motorcycle helmet manufacturers was through the roof back then (mid-1980s). Who the heck knows what it’s like now. Bell Helmets has been sued by people who were wearing some other brand of helmet when they were injured, simply because they are a U.S. company, and the manufacturer of the helmet worn by the victim wasn’t. Bell has been sued by someone who wasn’t wearing a helmet when they were injured, on the fatuous notion that Bell should have marketed their helmets more vigorously, then maybe the "victim" would have bought one. They have been sued by people who said that their injuries were Bell's fault because their helmets were too expensive, and if they were cheaper, the "victim" would have bought one.srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Mar 02, 2022 8:01 pm There is a very interesting possible side effect to this that most people may not realize. The fact that this is going to trial at all may cause a lot of automobile manufacturers to halt or greatly slow research into possible safety devices for cars. After all, if I have the technology and did not put it on every vehicle, I may be liable for a death. But if I don't have the technology, how can I be liable?
Is the next legal theory of liability going to be that I COULD have developed the technology earlier than I did, so a car that is in an accident that was made the year before I put the device in place is now also my fault? What about if I never develop the technology but some other car company does? If they refuse to license it am I at fault or are they?
This is a can of worms that I certainly hope the SCOTUS throws out.
Helmet manufacturers have been sued because they were injured while wearing a sample of a manufacturer's cheaper line of helmets that met the basic DOT standard, but not the more stringent Snell standard, on the notion that the manufacturer was at fault for not building all their helmets to the more expensive Snell standard.
Back in those days, in California anyway, there was little or no law protecting the accused in civil suits from frivolous lawsuits; and it was almost always cheaper to pay the plaintiff to go away, than it was to litigate a case even in which the defendant manufacturer had a pretty good chance of winning at trial. Those payoffs were reflected in the cost of liability insurance, which in turn was reflected in the retail price of helmets.
Most people will be happily dishonest and hide the truth if they think it will make them rich. And, I don’t hate lawyers, but let’s admit that there is a class of lawyers who will make an honest effort at dishonesty if they can make a buck off it. These lawyers enable the dishonest, and the rest of us pay for it. People are by and large a disappointment.