>At 10:24 PM -0500 9/19/01, Rikk Rogers wrote:
>>No, liability lawyers go for the deep pockets.
>>How many years did we operate cigarettes "at out own risks" and then they
>>had a $4 billion award to one guy.
>>NUTS!
>
>I think there was more to it than that. The Gun maker lawsuits are
>all falling on their faces one by one. Most have been thrown out at
>this point.
Ryan is correct, at least as far as I understand. The cigarette
companies were caught lying, falsifying documents, and... wait for it...
adding nicotine to their products when they a) knew they were making them
more addictive, and b) that it would likely kill/harm said adicts. And
that is where the lying and other wonderful stuff came into play ;-)
This means they are guilty of violating prodict liability laws (among
other things). Then of course there was the targeting of kids with
advertising, promoting their products as healthy, etc.
The gun makers have done none of this. They make things that are
designed to kill/harm. Otherwise known as a WEAPON. So since that is
their ONLY function (from a design standpoint), when a gun kills/harms
someone which is on the correct end (i.e. in front of the barrel's exit
point), the gun is in fact working correctly. No gun ads pitching their
weapons to children, nor pretending that their products are not harmfull.
Yet guns do include a number of safety features, and so far as I know no
gun manufacturer in my memory has been branded as having sold a gun that
was inherently unsafe (i.e. pull the trigger, gun explodes in hand). In
fact, the gun industry has been quite responsible on the whole. This is
NOT the case with tabacco companies. Hence the different (and correct!)
outcomes of trials. Well, at least for the most part.
Steve+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:00 PDT