Advertisement
by Christian Democrats » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:36 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:36 am
by Aclion » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:07 am
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:19 am
Aclion wrote:Test case: Jim breaks into Johns home, John confronts Jim and Jim stabs John with his Potatotm brand knife (Courts rule this is assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder) John shoots Jim with his Tomatotm brand gun(Courts rule this is justifiable homicide)
Is Potato liable for the harm done to John?
Is Tomato liable for the harm done to Jim?
by Aclion » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:37 am
Sciongrad wrote:Aclion wrote:Test case: Jim breaks into Johns home, John confronts Jim and Jim stabs John with his Potatotm brand knife (Courts rule this is assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder) John shoots Jim with his Tomatotm brand gun(Courts rule this is justifiable homicide)
Is Potato liable for the harm done to John?
Is Tomato liable for the harm done to Jim?
It almost seems too obvious to point at that neither company would be held liable.
their property is strictly liable for harm caused to the use
by Kenmoria » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:39 am
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:42 am
by Aclion » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:50 am
Sciongrad wrote:What's relevant for our purposes is whether the court actually held a knife manufacturer or gun manufacturer strictly liable for harms caused by their products in the scenarios you described. If they have not, then it doesn't matter whether a court has heard the case, because that doesn't show that as a matter of law this proposal would permit absurd outcomes.
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:51 am
Aclion wrote:Sciongrad wrote:What's relevant for our purposes is whether the court actually held a knife manufacturer or gun manufacturer strictly liable for harms caused by their products in the scenarios you described. If they have not, then it doesn't matter whether a court has heard the case, because that doesn't show that as a matter of law this proposal would permit absurd outcomes.
They have. it's why the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a thing.
by Aclion » Sat Aug 31, 2019 11:00 am
by Potted Plants United » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:01 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Sciongrad » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:25 am
Potted Plants United wrote:A large potted plant growing in a plantpot with wheels, in the corner of the debate hall, under an auspiciously placed lighting fixture, comes to life, pushing its plantpot a bit further away from the wall with two strong vines, says, "I grow edible plants for a large variety of clients, which have been specifically genetically designed to be safer to eat than their natural genetics would allow. This often means removing allergens from them or changing their biochemical composition to be less irritating. If there should be a natural mutation in the growing plant individual, that returned the plant's ability to produce the allergen again - a defect, in other words - and someone got a severe allergic reaction, a possibly a life-threatening situation as a result of eating it, would I be held responsible for that situation according to your proposal?"
OOC: Think of someone with severe peanut allergy, and imagine allergen-free GMO peanuts, which they would eat, thinking they were totally safe. So not talking of normally poisonous plants.
by Bananaistan » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:33 am
by Sciongrad » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:20 am
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Re 5b. What exactly does "inherently hazardous for any reasonable purpose" mean? EG cars are inherently hazardous products and can cause harm to bystanders even when used reasonably. I'm unclear on what the scope of this clause is supposed to be. Also, the first part of this clause seems to refer non-defective products but the second part allows for damages based on the "severity of the defect".
IC: "We are concerned that this proposal does not recognise any domestic consumer protection laws. We'd prefer Bananamen citizens to continue to be able to seek and receive redress for faulty goods from the retailer in the first instance, with the retailer subsequently dealing with the manufacturer through the mechanisms set up here. One could imagine that bringing a case to an international court will be rather a lot more hassle and expense for Joe Public than the local small claims court."
by Araraukar » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:19 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:41 am
by Sciongrad » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:14 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Alcohol, tobacco, chemotherapy medications, scalpels...
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:23 am
by Araraukar » Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:36 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Alcohol, tobacco, chemotherapy medications, scalpels...
OOC: What are the defects in these items that create harm when they are used for a reasonable purpose? The standard is not “you are liable if it causes harm.” It is “you are liable for harm where your product has defects that make it unreasonably hazardous when it is used appropriately for some reasonable purpose.” None of the items you list meet this standard.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:52 pm
Araraukar wrote:Sciongrad wrote:OOC: What are the defects in these items that create harm when they are used for a reasonable purpose? The standard is not “you are liable if it causes harm.” It is “you are liable for harm where your product has defects that make it unreasonably hazardous when it is used appropriately for some reasonable purpose.” None of the items you list meet this standard.
OOC: Well okay, scalpels don't, but most alcoholic beverages have (aside from just the ethanol) chemicals (natural and artificially added) that can be harmful to the drinker, or cause allergic reactions. Since you're including natural mutations of plants (I'll get back to you on that in PPU's IC later, don't worry) as "manufacturer's fault", I don't see why beverages brewed from possibly faulty (that is, containing stuff that isn't in the ingredients list) ingredients should get a free pass.
With tobacco, pesticide residue comes immediately to mind, but they're basically laced with all kinds of carcinogens to begin with - if the intended product is nicotine, anything else on top of it would be a "defect".
Chemotherapy medications were the strongest example I could think of, of what BA pointed out too: side-effects on medications. See 5.b.
In addition to (and tying into the medications thing) that, are manufacturers responsible for defects that will only show up/happen if the product is used in a way it's not supposed to be used? Because "a purpose which a reasonable consumer would believe the product to have based on its capabilities" would catch recreational use of prescription medications (especially using them combined with alcohol), and "representations in advertisements" doesn't specify advertizements by the manufacturer. You'd only need a viral video craze to advertize the misuse of some product and then the manufacturer could be held liable for the misuse of their product, though the defect would never have affected anyone if the product hadn't been used in a way not intended by the manufacturer.
by Sciongrad » Wed Sep 04, 2019 3:32 pm
Again, it is not sufficient that the product causes harm. It must have some defect that results in harm when used for its reasonable purpose. If you purchase something, consumption of which causes harm but with your full knowledge, the manufacturer is not liable — the harm is not the result of a defect, it is a known feature of the product.Araraukar wrote:Scalpels don't, but most alcoholic beverages have (aside from just the ethanol) chemicals (natural and artificially added) that can be harmful to the drinker...
If it is known that alcohol can cause an allergic reaction in some users when used for its purpose and consumers are aware of this possibility, then the manufacturer is not strictly liable. If you want a provision that explicitly excepts liability for instances where manufacturers do not clearly warn against potential side effects, I can do that, but you are not raising an argument against strict liability for products.or cause allergic reactions.
Since you're including natural mutations of plants (I'll get back to you on that in PPU's IC later, don't worry) as "manufacturer's fault"
I don't see why beverages brewed from possibly faulty (that is, containing stuff that isn't in the ingredients list) ingredients should get a free pass.
With tobacco, pesticide residue comes immediately to mind, but they're basically laced with all kinds of carcinogens to begin with - if the intended product is nicotine, anything else on top of it would be a "defect".
In addition to (and tying into the medications thing) that, are manufacturers responsible for defects that will only show up/happen if the product is used in a way it's not supposed to be used? Because "a purpose which a reasonable consumer would believe the product to have based on its capabilities" would catch recreational use of prescription medications (especially using them combined with alcohol),
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:30 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Further thoughts before I press ahead?
by Marxist Germany » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:51 am
by Sciongrad » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:23 am
Marxist Germany wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Is there a reason this is AoI/Tort Reform rather than Reg/Legal Reform or Reg/Safety? Is there reason to think most WA nations are heinously tyrannical to business with their consumer protection laws?
OOC: I agree with SL here, this looks like Regulation; Legal reform rather than Advancement of Industry; Tort Reform.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement