Why are there Liability Laws in the United States?
The development of liability laws in recent decades in the United States has produced both positive and negative results for producers of new products. The concept of "strict liability" says a consumer injured by a product can sue the manufacturer, even if they bought the item from a retailer. An implied warranty follows products down the purchasing chain, and a user merely has to show a defect to prove the maker's negligence. It's understandable that consumers like this degree of protection, since such a defect could produce calamitous results, particularly with health and vitamin products.
One initial result of this stricter legislation, however, was that entire lines of products vanished from the marketplace. Or, choosing a different route, businesses started relying on product liability lawyers to find loopholes that might get them out of complying with the strictest regulations. One argument was that most judgments were made in hindsight, perhaps based on scientific information that wasn't available when the products were made. Many companies also claimed these liability laws removed any incentive to develop new products. According to Jules L. Coleman in "Risks and Wrongs," a 1985/86 survey showed that 47% of American manufacturers had removed product lines, and 39% had decided not to introduce anything new.
As a result of the liability pressures on manufacturers of new products, many other companies took what was perhaps a more responsible route. Rather than decreasing or altogether ceasing new product research and innovation, they increased these activities. They actually spent more time researching how to produce better quality products, rather than seeking legal ways to avoid responsibility for producing those of lower quality.
Both manufacturers and retailers may argue that applying strict liability to new products puts no responsibility on the consumer to use products correctly, and it prevents growth in the market. But others might point out that if something protects people from injury due to defective products, then that's not a bad thing. If strict liability has prevented badly designed or defective items from entering the market, and encouraged companies to produce better products, then strict liability may have resulted in a net gain in society.
Matthew McMillan is a leading expert in the curing genital warts. His works are regularly featured in online health publications on matters relating to gential wart cure. For more information, visit TreatmentForGenitalWarts.com.
Tags: lawyer expert, medical injury, other products, product liability lawyers, video production