Posted by: Portland on Tue May 13 2008 12:01:19 AM
Message:
I don't know the facts of this case well enough to support an informed
opinion. But I will say that my opinion on tort law changed a lot
after studying it.
The gist of it is this:
1. If someone is going to manufacture a product, they must exercise
due diligence toward making it safe from all reasonable threats.
2. If after step (1) the product remains unsafe then the manufacturer
is required to appropriately warn the consumer of all the risks.
Failure to meet this test results in a ruling of negligence. There it
is. What's unreasonable?