Reply to Mandatory insurance for gun owners

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Mandatory insurance for gun owners"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]NP here, but I tend to think of manufacturer liability as being applicable [u]when the product failed or didn't do what it was designed to do[/u]. For example, GM's ignition switch debacle, or Takata airbags. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles out at high speed in order to put holes in things. Yes, too often that "thing" is a person's body, but it's hard to argue that the gun didn't do exactly what it was designed to do. Why should the gun manufacturer be sued for making a legal product that functions as intentioned? If somebody gets drunk and spins their SUV into a tree, the liability is not Range Rover's--the car worked fine. Now, if the gun misfired and blew up in the shooter's hand and severed their fingers, that would be manufacturer liability. I don't think it's special protection--what has the gun manufacturer done wrong? Their products do what they're supposed to, even if many of us don't like what that is, and they're perfectly legal. [/quote]
The legal test for a design defect is slightly different.  A defectively designed product might do exactly what it's supposed to do, but is nevertheless "unreasonably dangerous" to consumers when you balance (a) the potential danger from the product as-is against (b) the cost of designing the product in a way that avoids the danger.  (Different states use slightly different tests, so I'm just describing DC's approach to keep it simple.)  One example might be a cheapo space heater that's really tippy and lacks a shut-off control when it tips, so it tends to burn down houses when it falls over onto the carpet.  It does exactly what it's supposed to do (heat), but it's dangerous to consumers.  If it turns out the manufacturer could have added an auto shut-off switch at an extra cost of only 2 cents per unit, then that might be an example of a defectively designed product.

In the gun example, someone might argue (as a made-up example) that fingerprint trigger locks would eliminate 80% of gun deaths, and that a gun manufacturer could install fingerprint trigger locks at a cost of only $5 per unit.  The Gun manufacturer might argue in response that (a) trigger locks aren't really that effective because many gun deaths are suicides or other intentional shootings, and (b) that the actual cost of trigger lock is much higher because not only would it raise the price of the gun, but also lots of consumers would switch to a different brand of gun without the trigger lock.  A gun manufacturer might also argue that intentionally shooting a person is an "abnormal use" which the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for, but there is a pretty strong counter-argument that shooting people is a "reasonably foreseeable" use of the product.

Sorry to get all lawyerly, but I didn't want the topic to spin off in a misdirection.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics