66. In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries
- C* O+ Y6 t: `5 R/ Oresulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers
* z9 f; p1 O5 f! dagainst those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for " h$ [4 q0 q+ J9 G3 o: l* d {& L
such injuries is unjustifiable.
4 u& g, Z, W2 u8 S/ k/ C$ J Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an
2 S% j* i. X* V4 Qimportant and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and
7 H4 l" t7 f, y4 ]* ?- tsafety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level
* V- {0 R2 e: Xof safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials,
; z! R) i9 N( M0 c7 eand so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.& ~/ m9 b ]& P! [+ b. J* w
However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling. / o- H1 x$ q, M6 i1 S8 w
First, the standard is costly. It forces-manufacturers to incur undue expenses for
5 K+ T, C3 c, Xoverbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are
; t) Z. b/ e/ F5 ~0 `then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the
( g0 b9 w2 E* e" r! \% Hstandard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is
4 w0 B- N! M5 vdistributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually " W/ j7 B: Y7 F- @! i7 \
caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where
j8 I/ ~/ v P& t% cthe injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-# Z8 E- S- j5 ]+ U( k( e( n
hand users receive safe products or adequate "instructions and warnings. Finally, where
" H4 q- ]. N" C4 Tthe injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the
( n! A6 P$ Q, r) n; Wintended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware ) A K5 n P1 V* y8 K
of, it seems the user. not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury., g: d$ h; K+ I
In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation, # ]( R- a* l3 J* }7 ?& U
holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is ) r+ q, A8 K, y: l& l- Y
unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers. |