Regrettibly, Lawers, juries and insurance companies have eliminated the phrase "implied risk" from our vocabulary. I'll give you two good examples:
1) I work in automotive testing. For dripping chemicals on coatings (too test them), oiling intricate portions of machinery and such, a syringe is ideal. We bought two boxes. They came with needles. The safety people freaked. Not only were we told to get rid of the needles, we were told it was unacceptable to remove the needles from the syringes (a person might stick themselves with a steril needle, instead of, say, an oily machining chip), throw them out in the trash or take the needles home to disopose of them. We had to order a "sharps" container, place the (still sealed in the package) syringes in it, and have a hazarous waste disposal company remove it.
2) About 7 years ago, GM got sued over a vehicle fire. It seems said vehicle was rear ended at extreemly high speed, and managed to catch fire. Never mind that the vehicle was about 12 years old at the time of impact, or that the occupants still survived, it caught fire.
In processing the paperwork for the suit, the lawyer found a 1973 memo wherein a GM engineer stated that deaths from fires cost GM only $2.40 a car, and fixing the tank in the Malibu would cost GM as much as $4 to $12 per car.
The jury found GM liable to the amount of
$4.9 BILLION.http://money.cnn.com/1999/07/09/home_auto/gm_verdict_a/
Add that to laws that prohibit anyone who is not already a lawyer from being elected as a judge?
Tort reform? Reform doesn't even cover it.