66. In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries
/ [; q; V; ?$ m5 i4 V: ^0 P: lresulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers
0 c% f" y' o3 ?, i5 Eagainst those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for
6 n$ P: V% L$ u% H0 j. |3 `# }such injuries is unjustifiable.
) W& B" G" ]( e/ S2 T% A& k Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an
4 t: U; e# D7 y. b! p* limportant and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and * g; T' e: g) o6 S
safety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level ( P O! ?2 h" k9 L$ w! R
of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials, 1 U4 a/ ~% u; O/ y
and so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation. Q E7 P* L8 i+ ]5 b
However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling.
+ |: Y3 X; l2 n$ l! V1 `) I2 _+ wFirst, the standard is costly. It forces-manufacturers to incur undue expenses for
0 b8 y5 @! F+ p; |overbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are 5 K+ W4 I! c4 N
then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the
2 P" g- z" U6 W8 I5 e2 Z" F4 Dstandard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is ! t( z0 ` W( H3 _" B) p
distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually + b. K1 P3 [1 K0 z
caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where
4 p! Z2 @$ I2 |/ [; c4 W& ^the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-
: J& N0 @0 W! F( ~* Z; z) `hand users receive safe products or adequate "instructions and warnings. Finally, where
K& z8 m6 z4 `the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the ; t" K* D, ]: u# i0 {9 E
intended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware
0 g; S9 \; |! I! L8 `) iof, it seems the user. not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.
6 e" J7 q- _* Z/ f% } In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation, & f- U4 S3 N- F+ g; t
holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is % {2 k/ U6 @# m$ j9 h
unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers. |