Cirrus sued by Lidle's & Stanger's families

C J Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

Ash Wyllie wrote:


Better to just ban punitive damages.



I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an
manufacture as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do
the math and decide that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of
damage awards in the future than to recall the items and fix them.
This is a case where punitive damages should be levied.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved
responsibly. In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is
cheaper to fix a few flawed items than to prevent any flawed item
from leaving the loading dock. A warranty is nothing more than an
insurance policy that the buyer is forced to pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made
whole.

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

On Mar 6, 7:39 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.

I find it difficult to paint with an overly broad brush...

I'm certain that there are far too many people who DO make such a
calculation.

I'm also certain that many calculate that the product won't sell at
all, or will be too expensive to sell, etc., if, for example, some
particular safety item were installed. (Look at Taser; they sell a
disabling item that cops can use instead of bullets. A lot of people
are alive because of this technology. A few are dead because of some
medical condition or drug use complication. But Taser gets sued. So
maybe the cops should have used the high-speed lead?????

I'm also aware that way too many people won't put on their seat belt,
but will then sue the city for putting the light pole too close to the
street. Some lawyer will take the case; some judge will let it go; and
some jury will feel sorry for them. And they'll get money because the
city was "X% negligent". Here's an idea: If the city is less than
50% negligent, the sue-er should be ordered to pay for the lamp post
instead of getting money.