Comment by DannyBee
7 months ago
"The manufacturers can already be sued if they make a product which is dangerous even when used appropriately."
In most states they will get comparative negligence, if they get sued at all.
The traditional way of doing what i suggest is paying into a fund that people make claims against without having to sue.
As for the rest, yes, you can game it, but that's easy to fix as well - you can require they have sufficient assets/surety to cover if you sell in the US. This is done all the time.
It is quite easy to ensure a level playing field, and we know, because this is not the first situation something like this has occurred in.
Also note they already can't sell saws this dangerous in europe. Between losing the european market and the US market, there isn't a lot of market left.
> The traditional way of doing what i suggest is paying into a fund that people make claims against without having to sue.
Which only trades one cost for another, because now there is less checking going into ensuring that the person responsible is the person paying the claim. Why should innocent people have to pay more for tools to cover claims by other careless customers who injure themselves through their own negligence and no fault of the manufacturer?
> you can require they have sufficient assets/surety to cover if you sell in the US.
And now nobody can start a small company making tools because they can't afford to post the bond.
> this is not the first situation something like this has occurred in.
It is indeed not the first time we've passed an inefficient rule that imposes higher costs on innocent customers.