Zen21Tao
Member
I had a law class where we studied this crap about being able to sue multiple parties when not sure who is at fault.
The professor used the analogy of 2 hunters firing off into the words and an “innocent bystander” getting hit. In this analogy there isn’t a way to tell which of the two hunters fired the shot so (according to the Professor) the only correct thing to do is to find both hunters liable.
I went ballistic (pardon the pun) when he said this. One of the two is definitely NOT at fault and shouldn’t be held liable. The Professor just held firm that it is less fair for the innocent bystander that was shot not to be “made better” than for the innocent gun owner to have to pay for what he didn’t do. He cited as support for this the tenants of redistributive justice.
This professor even presented us with the idea that a company should be able to be sued even when there hasn’t been an incident where their product has caused damage just as long as their product could have. For example, if a pharmaceutical company makes a vitamin that is found to cause problems with lab rats infected with cancer then a person with cancer that bought the vitamin but didn’t take it should be able to sue because of what could have happened if they had taken the vitamin. His reasoning was that corporations need to be stopped before they can make money off of harming others.
This is ridiculous, so a criminal held at gun point by the homeowner of the house he broke into can sue the gun manufacturer because the homeowner could have shot him? The professor agreed with this.
I have to say, that liberal interpretations of the law really sickens me.
The professor used the analogy of 2 hunters firing off into the words and an “innocent bystander” getting hit. In this analogy there isn’t a way to tell which of the two hunters fired the shot so (according to the Professor) the only correct thing to do is to find both hunters liable.
I went ballistic (pardon the pun) when he said this. One of the two is definitely NOT at fault and shouldn’t be held liable. The Professor just held firm that it is less fair for the innocent bystander that was shot not to be “made better” than for the innocent gun owner to have to pay for what he didn’t do. He cited as support for this the tenants of redistributive justice.
This professor even presented us with the idea that a company should be able to be sued even when there hasn’t been an incident where their product has caused damage just as long as their product could have. For example, if a pharmaceutical company makes a vitamin that is found to cause problems with lab rats infected with cancer then a person with cancer that bought the vitamin but didn’t take it should be able to sue because of what could have happened if they had taken the vitamin. His reasoning was that corporations need to be stopped before they can make money off of harming others.
This is ridiculous, so a criminal held at gun point by the homeowner of the house he broke into can sue the gun manufacturer because the homeowner could have shot him? The professor agreed with this.
I have to say, that liberal interpretations of the law really sickens me.
They (the jury pool) don't want to give up their "lottery," i.e., the chance that if they were in a similar situation, a jury would vote to compensate the injured because the defendant [corporation] in in a better position to bear the burden. This sickness began more than a century ago in American jurisprudence and has been accepted as the norm, and now the law, by all judges and law schools.
Consider applying the same standard in other fields. Should being a licensed plumber exclude you from ever being a plumbing inspector?
