66. In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries
; p0 Y' P! J4 J4 `resulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers % n% D. M; Z$ l
against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for
" y" c. U w. _9 u* Y6 Dsuch injuries is unjustifiable.
$ g+ Y# ^/ b: { Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an
: ^8 E. K }/ L2 C) Q% aimportant and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and
, |( n& t% ]0 S9 c) F% a6 [% bsafety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level ! ]! u0 S! Y, O3 I& I& h: `2 S
of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials,
( d- N+ @- Y* r% U3 H6 `. I Wand so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.( c7 @( o# O) } `! o, [3 m
However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling. ! p3 @0 F! W1 n' R/ A" [
First, the standard is costly. It forces-manufacturers to incur undue expenses for
2 ?( [% n$ S2 `0 Foverbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are % x8 `7 ?6 ~/ f. A" I# e+ X+ {6 s
then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the
: z. I1 r" q2 f* kstandard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is / @7 [5 a) F$ ?' M
distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually : b# i* Q( s) p1 n3 V* O* d o5 F+ c
caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where ) O- B( D# K7 \
the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-
. P; A# O! @6 ^5 W! k1 q9 C& g% Ihand users receive safe products or adequate "instructions and warnings. Finally, where ; V! s/ O j9 x% R& x0 a2 v" I# S
the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the
) j/ e6 H$ q$ _$ pintended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware ( R2 C6 l3 W6 J% ?. ^
of, it seems the user. not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.
- `% @. o6 p; N/ a; r r0 q In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation, $ T3 E; H% a# `$ x' J! I: X
holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is
: X. Q% j: G% H7 |, Uunjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers. |