Yaron Answers: Asbestos Liability

[Berelore]

Food for thought. From what I can tell you would say a company needs to do what it can to determine if their product is safe, but if they can't then they aren't liable because it wasn't foreseeable. Then it becomes a matter of what is considered reasonable in terms of examining a products risks.

[fakjbf]

Well it does make sense that it should be required by law the weight limit to be listed. If you live in a place where all the elevators can take say 750 lbs, but you go somewhere with a bunch of friends and it can only handle 500 lbs, you might try to fit 6 people in there. So because you aren't going to research the elevator, it should be required to put a weight limit sign. The regulation is as he said a preemptive thing, to make you aware of basic risks before you're hurt.

[Draanor]

Yes of course and that is something that should've been caught during reasonable testing I think. However, it's not that the design shouldn't be allowed to exist, more that risks need to be labeled as existing as found in reasonable testing. For example, an elevator should have weight limits listed for what stress it's tested under. It shouldn't necessarily be a law to be listed as such, just that not having that label makes you liable for lawsuits in case of malfunction or injury.

[fakjbf]

You could probably make the case that they have to meet a minimum of testing. They have to take their product, run tests on it in ways that people would use it, and see if it's safe for general usage. That's the minimum they should be doing. But it's also up to consumers to use the product in at least a reasonable way. If the product was used in a reasonable manner, and still caused damage, then you can make the case of the company being held liable.

[Draanor]

I think they should be held liable for willful ignorance (empirical negligence) that affects third party people who haven't made any contract waiving such liability. I want companies to have freedom but said freedom should have consequences if bad things happen. Elimination of liability will dramatically increase the number of fly-by-night inventions which can be inherently dangerous claiming miracles and marvels sold because the inventor is willfully ignorant about its dangers.

[Draanor]

One thing I've thought about for these new cutting edge technologies, chemicals, substances, etc., is businesses involved in manufacturing and sale of these things must make a conscious effort to discover potential health risks before distribution. I don't believe willful ignorance is a valid defense against liability. This will be especially important as new substances are made which are more complex than ever before.

[Attritive]

If you work for a company knowing they don't do the research, or you buy from a company knowing they haven't done the research, would you still think that the company should be held liable?

[Draanor]

It should simply be a "I'll know it if I see it" type of policy where it should be obvious to an impartial person (judge) that the company made reasonable attempts to discover and declare inherent yet subtle dangers of their product.

I'm not sure if I agree with them being liable for damages during use. They should be only liable if it caused damage not already warned about. Use of the product should imply the consumer consents to possible damage as warned.

It gets even murkier if you pose the question that should the manufacturer be responsible of studying the issue and safety of the product or can it just produce anything and not study it and then claim ignorance if something comes up? I personally think ignorance isn't defense in every case, but in some cases it might be. Where do we draw the line?

[Draanor]

Depends on whether you believe in property rights or not. Some people believe you "own" the property which is your body. Voluntary slavery is indentured servitude and is a reasonable practice. Assisted suicide is a reasonable practice as well assuming the contract was made voluntarily. Obviously certain behaviors could not be allowed as such actions are inherently involuntary or require the person to be in a state of mind which negates their ability to understand their contract.

[fakjbf]

Well look at the Pinto. If get hit in the rear with a half full gas tank and your blinker on, the car explodes. You could do everything right, and use the product perfectly safely, but they could still die because of a flaw in the design of the car. So the company should be held liable for something like that.

[FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

Think of fire, and what it has benefitted man since its discovery 790, 000 years ago to the point that it dominates our existence to this day in the form of furnaces to the internal combustion engine. No one wants to mention that it is 100% incompatible with *Living on Earth*
ie. Combustion Intake consumes Oxygen (in direct competition with Man)
Combustion Exhaust emits/produces CO (poisonous to Man)

Can you imagine a more frankenstein scenario?

GoTo my channel: it links to Galt's Gulch IX

[FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

...and looking below at Mr.Draanor's need-jerk response any reasonal Man can see why I warn of *imminent doom* if this mentality of tieing 'reasonable' «nd 'justice' to the word 'subjective' is not corrected.

If you want to know, start by looking correctly at *the Good*:

*intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality independent of man's consciousness: the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness independent of reality...*

Objective ...

[Draanor]

The very idea of anything being "reasonable" is subjective. The very notion of criminal justice is subjective. In an entirely objective society killing a person would have the same punishment regardless of motive or circumstance. Your society sounds awfully "eye-for-an-eye"-ish (the only way an objective society could keep order) which isn't a society reasonable people should want or need.

[fakjbf]

You're saying it's the consumer's fault because they didn't expect a fender bender caused by someone else to kill them because of a design flaw that could have been fixed for $11? If they wanted to risk their life they would get a motorcycle, you buy a Pinto because it looks safe for a family. And yes, it was designed to be hit. If it wasn't it would be a motor with an open seating area. The metal frame is there to protect you from a hit.

[mrsky]

No, the metal frame is just there to be a frame. Sure, the car company could make it durable enough to take a hit, but it certainly isn't its obligation to do so. For the general public's case, most would benefit from a third-party review of the car, which may argue the case that the car is not fit for safety. Nevertheless, the car company can design any kind of car it wants, and no one has the right to object.

[Draanor]

I said nothing about government intervention so don't project ideas into my argument. The point of liability is the company would be economically liable for damages in cases where they make no attempt to discover risks for new substances.

[FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

That *I'll know it if I see it* policy is illegitimate:

A very knowledgeable blogger analyses it on his page here:



The total problem is that society has been sucked into unconditional acceptance of non-objective law - which spells imminent doom for Man.
Not the case however, in Galt's Gulch where we recognize only Objective values.

Yes, it exists; the link to info & contact is on my channel.

FdA

[mrsky]

You say "you could do everything right", but there is no such thing. First, you bought the car and no one forced you to. The degree of safety comes at a price. If you have the money, you could buy a Volvo, or a tank.
Secondly, the car was designed to drive, not for you to get hit. The design was not flawed because it lowered the manufacture cost and allowed to the car to be offered to a wider market audience so that even more people have the chance to drive.