when he was first called on it weeks/months ago. Unless the gun explodes in someone's hands like the Saturday night specials, there is not much ground to sue makers.

Unless you want to LOOK like you are going to "get things done" without actually putting a viable plan on the table. Then, by all means, talk about suing gun manufacturers on the campaign trail.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

4. Only if technology was readily available to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm

Reply to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:06 PM

Mar 2016

Merely selling something that performs its function is not the end of the story on potential product liability.

Additionally, even if a product conforms to all applicable safety regulations, it can be that the regulations themselves are inadequate to address foreseeable risks of harm. It can be the case that the regulations are not adequate.

For example, if we were talking about something like a situation where a person bought a gun, a criminal stole the gun, and then shot someone with it, a valid question might be whether there is readily available technology which prevents a gun from being fired by a person other than the owner and whether guns are frequently stolen enough that failure to use that technology renders the product defective.

But I am sure there are simple minded people on the internet who think they know something about law who would make a stupid and inapplicable analogy out of something like that.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)

5. They were believed to be safe at the time they were manufactured and installed in the ground ...

Reply to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:12 PM

Mar 2016

knowing what we do now .... if those same pipes are sold or installed now .... they sure as hell should be sued.

anyone involved with current transactions with these pipes should be held liable.

Takket

(21,529 posts)

10. ^^This

Reply to etherealtruth (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:14 PM

Mar 2016

1939

(1,683 posts)

6. Since we have 20-20 hindsight

Reply to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:24 PM

Mar 2016

Why didn't the city building code forbid the use of lead pipe in home plumbing?

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)

11. We Should!

Reply to global1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:44 PM

Mar 2016

I mean, I'm 100% positive the case would fail based on 250 years of product law, but if we sue them enough we can bankrupt them. How dare they provide the standard water piping material for 2 millennia!

Reply to this discussion