Comment by skybrian

Yes, there's an argument that society should be willing to pay up to the amount of the damage to prevent it. It's okay as far as it goes. However, that's equivalent to saying that if a safety improvement costs $1 to manufacture and saves $10 in damage, then the supplier should get the entire profit ($9). Although, he's just asking for $5. How generous!

This is a form of value-based pricing - figure out how much the customer values a thing and use that to persuade them to pay a higher price. Salespeople really like value-based pricing arguments.

Some safety measures are cheap, and suppliers can be bargained down. In the presence of robust competition, they could be bargained down to near the the cost of goods. But patents can result in a monopoly, along with monopoly pricing.

How much should you pay for tires? How about brakes? A vaccine?

In this case, I think he deserves to get rich from coming up with the idea, but there's still a lot of room for negotiation about how rich.