Should you be able to bring legal action to a company based on others misuse of product.

[Arsenic]

Before even start, I have no clue how to word the title, so if anyone has a better wording do leave it at the top of your reply.

On to business now!

A judge has recently ruled that families of those lost at Sandy Hook may continue with their legal action against both Bushmaster and Remington (weapons used during the shooting). They allege that the companies should be held responsible for people's misuse of their product, as well as that they advertise to young adults, and that we have more violent tendencies.

Now my question for debate is, should companies be held responsible for others misuse of their products? I am not just limiting to firearm companies either.

I say no, myself. You wouldn't sue jack Daniel's for someone's actions while drunk. Nor would you sue BMW because an m3 t-boned you. I myself do not understand how you can hold a company responsible for an individual's actions. Now if the misuser had been paid to do damage with the product and you can prove that, go ahead and sue.

As far as this news story goes, I get the families are hurting still and they have every right to be, but it feels like they're just trying to sue anything they possibly can. I'm honestly waiting for these families to go after the PD for not responding fast enough or to sue Hollywood for "inspiring violence".

So let's hear your opinions on this. Just remember this isn't a debate on gun rights, yeah?

 

[KetsuekiR]

should companies be held responsible for others misuse of their products?

That seems like a pretty good title.

I strongly believe that companies should not be liable for the use of their product. What consumers do after buying the product should not be the responsibility of the manufacturer or retailer. If it were, the companies would have to keep tabs on their consumers and that would turn into a whole new problem regarding privacy.

The adage, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies directly here, and it's true. Like your examples, in the same way we shouldn't blame car companies for accidents or alcohol companies for the actions of someone under the influence, it's completely unfair and utterly unreasonable.

 

[Kanzler]

The lawsuit has merits that are not limited by the PLCAA:

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

Companies generally shouldn't be held responsible for others' misuse of their products, unless they have been negligent or misleading to the third parties or have violated another law in the process of selling their product. You wouldn't sue Jack Daniel's for someone's actions while drunk. But if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that got people drunk but didn't inform the public of those side effects, then they should be held liable for what someone does while drunk. Negligence and misleading the public are valid conditions on which to hold a company liable for a third party's actions and there may be others as well.

So you could say my position is "yes, companies should be held responsible for others' misuse of their products under certain situations" or "no, companies should in general not be held responsible for others' misuse of their products".

 

[Esper]

It really depends on what a product's "use" is.

If a company is making something and it knows that it is being widely used for illegal or dangerous purposes and doesn't address this then I think, yes, it is reasonable to hold the company responsible. Whether that means suing or something else, I dunno.

Like, imagine you have a tobacco company and it says its cigarettes are only meant to be used infrequently, but the very nature of the product causes people to get addicted to it and use it too much. They can say "oh, those people are misusing our product" but that won't stop people from being hurt by it while the company makes tons of money.

tl;dr a company shouldn't be allowed to claim their product has one "use" when they know it's being used in other, bad ways

 

[Midnight shadow]

There's 2 forces at work here. First we could have a person who gets injured trying to follow unclear product instructions, then we have people who use a product for something other than its intended use and gets injured. A good example of the first scenario is the lawsuit of Nintendo, the N64 and the first Mario Party game. That game was notorious for minigames that involved rapidly spinning the control stick. This was done using the Palm of the hand again solid grooved plastic. As a result, many kids suffered friction burns playing the game, and the parents sued Nintendo for it. Nintendo lost because the kids were injured following the instructions of the game.

The other scenario I would argue is entirely the fault of the person who got injured. I remember reading about a guy who thought Cruise Control on a car meant auto-pilot, and crashed when he took his hands off the wheel thinking it would drive itself. He tried to sue the car manufacturers for it, when frankly it was his own stupidity that caused the accident.

 

[Somewhere_]

There's 2 forces at work here. First we could have a person who gets injured trying to follow unclear product instructions, then we have people who use a product for something other than its intended use and gets injured. A good example of the first scenario is the lawsuit of Nintendo, the N64 and the first Mario Party game. That game was notorious for minigames that involved rapidly spinning the control stick. This was done using the Palm of the hand again solid grooved plastic. As a result, many kids suffered friction burns playing the game, and the parents sued Nintendo for it. Nintendo lost because the kids were injured following the instructions of the game.

The other scenario I would argue is entirely the fault of the person who got injured. I remember reading about a guy who thought Cruise Control on a car meant auto-pilot, and crashed when he took his hands off the wheel thinking it would drive itself. He tried to sue the car manufacturers for it, when frankly it was his own stupidity that caused the accident.

I agree with you here. The only way the company should be held liable is if they sold the weapon to an individual who they knew would commit a crime with it.

 

[Midnight shadow]

I agree with you here. The only way the company should be held liable is if they sold the weapon to an individual who they knew would commit a crime with it.

In the case of the OP it seems the lawsuit is again the gun manufacturers rather than whoever actually sold the weapons. The gun manufacturers have nothing to do with the actions of the user. On the other hand, you could make a case that they didn't screen the buyer thoughouly enough before selling the guns to them. I don't know how strict the regulations on this are since guns are mostly banned in the UK, but I'm sure someone could enlighten me on this.

 

[Somewhere_]

In the case of the OP it seems the lawsuit is again the gun manufacturers rather than whoever actually sold the weapons. The gun manufacturers have nothing to do with the actions of the user. On the other hand, you could make a case that they didn't screen the buyer thoughouly enough before selling the guns to them. I don't know how strict the regulations on this are since guns are mostly banned in the UK, but I'm sure someone could enlighten me on this.

I meant more as an assister to the crime. Not as a lack of sufficient background info, but rather, knowing the intentions of the individual and enabling them to commit the crime by selling the weapon (even if the weapon is sold at a market price). It would be similar, but not exactly, to if I paid you to kill someone I disliked (I would also be held liable for the murder). Except, in the case we are discussing, the criminal would be paying the gun manufacturer/distributor in order to be enabled to commit the crime.

 

[Midnight shadow]

I meant more as an assister to the crime. Not as a lack of sufficient background info, but rather, knowing the intentions of the individual and enabling them to commit the crime by selling the weapon (even if the weapon is sold at a market price). It would be similar, but not exactly, to if I paid you to kill someone I disliked (I would also be held liable for the murder). Except, in the case we are discussing, the criminal would be paying the gun manufacturer/distributor in order to be enabled to commit the crime.

I see where you're coming from and again it would come down to proper screening of the buyers to make as sure as possible they they would only use the gun for self defends. Of course, the problem with that is it's almost impossible to tell for sure what a person is going to do, and just because they never killed someone before doesn't mean they won't in the future. It would be kinda unfair to hold the gun distributor responsible if they followed all the screening procedures and the gun they sold still ended up being used for a crime. Of course, it would be a whole lot simpler if they just abandoned the U.S constitution and outright banned the sale and use of guns.