Post #331,821
8/25/10 12:41:06 PM
|
Then what is it? The specific concern?
You've seen the warning labels and inserts on products. Three pages of what not to do: Don't use the circular saw in the bathtub; don't use the chainsaw on the branch you're sitting on; don't use varnish as a hair-care product. Every one of those warning represents something that someone did, and the company is protecting itself from lawsuits.
Now look at regulations that companies face trying to build factories in the U.S. Every one of those regulations started out as something that a company tried to do, and they have to be specifically told not to.
Cost of compliance is too high? For small companies, yes. You need a full-time legal staff to be sure you're in compliance. Here's an idea: Index the fines to the company revenues, so the cost of non-compliance is relative to what you're doing.
Eg: A backyard mechanic dumps oil down the storm drain? Fine him a week's revenue -- $1,000 dollars per incident -- plus cleanup costs. BP dumps oil into the Gulf of Mexico? $4.7 billion per incident plus cleanup costs. Oh, and "incident" is defined as one day they were doing it. So 84 days * $4.7 billion = $394.8 billion. Plus cleanup.
I think it's appropriate that the more benefit you get from the system, the more you owe to it if you fuck up.
--
Drew
|
Post #331,860
8/25/10 9:40:09 PM
|
Nit on warning labels
The fact that is says "Don't X" doesn't mean somebody tried X. It means that either somebody tried X or somebody in the company considered the possibility that somebody might try X.
Tech writers (and apps engineers and others) are paid to think of stupid things customers might do before they actually do them. And we know better than to say "but nobody would ever..."
It's Fun!
---------------------------------------
I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.
(Tori Amos)
|
Post #331,861
8/25/10 9:50:25 PM
|
so before any drilling is done
a $394.8 billion payment is required as a cleanup deposit. You are a good regulator there drook. You could regulate a company out of business faster than obama. We dont need no stinkin jobs unless they are gummint stinkin jobs.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #331,863
8/25/10 10:04:17 PM
|
Government enabled.
a member of the government forced that labeling by forgetting a concept called contributory negligence in exchange for a concept called strict liability.
It used to be that if you used your hairdryer in the bathtub, the court could call you an idiot and dismiss the suit. Now, if the company doesn't specifically forbid it in labeling, the base assumption is your so stupid that you are going to do it...and the company should be forced to pay you millions for your stupidity.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #331,869
8/25/10 10:26:55 PM
|
Not quite right.
IANAL.
However, http://en.wikipedia....#Strict_liability
Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.
It seems to me the important word in that excerpt is "defective".
http://www.scribd.co...ls-Out-of-Control
No matter which theory is used in a failure-to-warn defect case, proximate cause is still a critical component that must be proven in all products liability suits, including failure-to-warn defect cases.12 Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) the defendant manufacturer, supplier, or seller knew or should have known of the dangers related to the productÂs intended use; (2) the productÂs user/consumer was reasonably unaware of these dangers; (3) the defendant manufacturer, supplier, or seller failed to exercise reasonable care to notify the user/consumer of the productÂs unsafe condition or the facts which make the product prone to be dangerous; and (4) the risk and degree of harm was large enough to justify that a warning should have been provided.13 Moreover, to win a failure-to-warn defect case, plaintiffs must also convince the fact-finder that heeding the warning would have prevented the injury.14 Accordingly, failure-to-warn defect cases may be predicated on Â(1) the absence of a warning, (2) the inadequacy of the warning given, or (3) the absence or inadequacy of instructions in the safe use of the product.Â15
IOW, common sense still has a place in the law - believe it or not.
I'd be very surprised if there were real, successful, lawsuits in which, say, someone stuck their head in a cement mixer and complained that they were injured because the instructions didn't say "do not stick head inside this cement mixer". Similarly, I haven't been able to find any real cases of people suing for electric shock after using a hairdryer in the bathtub. Instead, there are voluntary standards - http://www.cpsc.gov/...ub/pubs/5037.html
But, again, IANAL.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #331,870
8/25/10 10:31:56 PM
|
Shows what I get for using an analogy
You want to focus on what's wrong with the analogy.
The point was to compare the existence of warnings with the existence of laws: Nobody wants them, but they're all there because someone "needs" to be told.
With warning labels, the "need" is driven by lawsuits and strict liability. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss what's wrong with that.
With laws, the "need" is driven by amoral corporations that have historically placed profits ahead of public safety. And where the fines are such a small fraction of the potential profits, they are seen as a cost of doing business, and not something worth complying with.
--
Drew
|
