Ridiculous judgment aluminum baseball bat manufacturers lose big time
Unfortunately, this is one of the dumbest decisions I've ever seen.
Read the article, which I've linked with. Apparently, the ball flew the witness the bat faster, less than a millisecond, then it would be out of the wood bat have flown. If you should have warned the manufacturer?
The batter? The jug?
Me I question, what kind of the pitcher asked, when he batted?
If the manufacturer had warned what with the League have done, prohibit the bats to?
See, this is a very very sad death, but I see no way that the baseball bat manufacturer for this young man's death can be held responsible. For me, this is exactly the kind of action and judgment, the fire of tort reform fuels and makes it more difficult for someone who is injured.
One comment to "ridiculous judgment loses aluminum baseball bat manufacturers big time"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
Further legal protection for defective automobile manufacturers
"It felt like we had hit by a basketball". That's what Bob McGee predicated on the impact and the subsequent fuel fed fire, which claimed the life of his son and almost killed his wife.
The jury General Motors to sell a car with a dangerous and defective fuel system held responsible. This ruling helped change car manufacturers design cars.
But now, once again try "tort reform" activists "the basketball responsible to make."
Big business from the State to take the crash theory. You want the driver responsible for all injuries in the crash, including those caused by a defect. This means increased protection for manufacturers to sell the dangerous and defective vehicles. And if large companies for the catastrophic medical bills, they cause that pay, taxpayers generally end with the invoice.
We should do it not to. They must be forced to make sure their products.
Do not let "the basketball guilt."
House Bill 201 increases for vote in the House of representatives soon. We ask you to e-Mail-your representative and you ask to vote 'No' in House Bill 201. Let's continue to blame us automakers for the provision of safe cars.
Should a vehicle manufacturer, that a defective product made that caused can move fault to the driver of the vehicle injuries in an accident?
Position: NR. The crash doctrine is rooted in the case of a long-held principle from the 1968 law requiring car manufacturers to have their products in a crash. Attempts to change this doctrine and allow automakers shift the blame for their defective products to someone else, as the driver who caused the accident is wrong and unfair to consumers. If in a frontal collision airbags don't provide a manufacturer could say that it is the driver's fault.
Car manufacturers, which bad products to avoid legal and financial penalties for their shifts the financial burden of caring for injured by faulty products on the taxpayers of the State of Florida, instead of the manufacturer. It provides no incentive for vehicle manufacturers of safer cars and the automotive industry, which already is the cost of liability claims in the price of the car will not harm.
History: 1968 The crash doctrine was invoked in a case Larsen vs. General Motors founded. The opinion said in this case, that car crashes are inevitable and car manufacturers are responsible for the production of their cars as safe as possible in a collision.
In the year 2001 in Florida, in d ' Amario vs. Ford Motor Company, a case of a motor-vehicle accident and subsequent vehicle detected fire, Florida Supreme Court, a clear distinction between obligation caused a car accident and liability of the producer of a defective product, which has caused injuries advanced beyond the first accident.
In d ' Amario, the Court has held that a manufacturer only for improved injury is responsible. Thus a jury may not divide error with the driver of the vehicle. The Supreme Court, said the jury focus should be on a fault if existed and whether the behavior of the driver caused or the first collision causing it injury, not what improves.
In the past, automakers have deep resistance to improvement of security, such as such as seat belts in the 1960s and airbags in the 1990's because of concerns about cost or marketing shown. It was only 10 years ago, that tire manufacturer Firestone had to remember which had caused at least 200 dead and 700 injured millions of defective tires. Since then, it has a national movement and accountability manufacturer, with Florida leading the way with its decision d ' Amario to make vehicles safer.
Car security
Vehicle manufacturers are not expected to design cars that are accident-proof. More than 30 years ago founded this vehicle, the manufacturer for the vehicles which will be subject to a "unreasonable risk of injury." occupant are not expected automakers know case law Florida receive vehicles in collisions and their responsibility to prevent injuries. Ford Motor Company, which says in the instructions for his 2005 Tour: "36,700 crashes come every day."
It is also the reason vehicle manufacturers behavior full crash, a key indicator of organisations such as consumer reports, whether a vehicle is used. This is an important factor to use the consumer when you buy a car. Consumers assume that services the vehicles such as the Honda Civic, developed thanks to published reports on crash test high for example in place to protect against injury.
Escaping debt
The Florida Supreme Court said in 2001 that juries, not in the position error between the automaker and the driver should share. But legislative proposals had undermined crash automakers blame for faulty products and the purpose of teaching to escape. Juries would have said, to consider, which led to the accident to determine the fault for an extended injury, such as such as a drunk driver. Supporters of this legislation claim without him will be negligent driver way off the hook. This is not true--negligent driver are still responsible for all injuries caused by their reckless behavior, but not the risk of injuries due to deficiencies of a car manufacturer.
Taxpayers foot the Bill
Another problem with reversal of the doctrine of the crash is the huge consequences for the citizens of Florida, because rehabilitation costs to the taxpayer. Just because the manufacturer to avoid responsibility for injuries that they cause, are given a free pass, this does not mean that the injuries go away. Instead victims refer to social assistance and the taxpayer at the end of the Bill for medical care. In addition the cost of the product have built liability suits in the price for cars product manufacturers for decades.
Completed: The Florida legislature should not have the safety of Floridians took over after Alabama's vehicle manufacturers prefer. Legislative proposals that allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid liability for defective products, and there is no incentive to make products safer, are bad for Floridians. A big step backwards would this legislation in the search for safer products and an injustice for consumers and taxpayers.
Ridiculous judgment, aluminum baseball bat manufacturers lose big time
Unfortunately, this is one of the dumbest decisions I've ever seen.
Read the article, which I've linked with. Apparently, the ball flew the witness the bat faster, less than a millisecond, then it would have flown off bat from a wood. Who should have warned the manufacturers?
The batter? The jug?
Me I question what uses kind of bat of the pitcher when he batted?
If the developer did a warning what had spent with the League, ban the bats to?
See, this is a very very sad death, but I see no way that the baseball bat manufacturer for this young man's death can be held responsible. For me, this is exactly the kind of action and judgment, the fire of tort reform fuels and makes it more difficult for others who is injured.
One comment to "ridiculous judgment, loses aluminum baseball bat manufacturers big time"
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]
Further legal protection for defective automobile manufacturers
"It felt like we had hit by a basketball". That's what predicated on the impact and subsequent fuel fire Fed Bob McGee, the the life of his son and almost claimed killed his wife.
The jury General Motors for sale a car with a dangerous and defective fuel system held responsible. This ruling helped change the nature and the way that design car manufacturer cars.
But now, once again try "tort reform" activists "the basketball responsible to make."
Big business from the State to take the crash theory. You want the driver responsible for all injuries in the crash, including those caused by a defect. This means increased protection for manufacturers to sell the dangerous and defective vehicles. And if large companies for the catastrophic medical bills, they cause numbers, taxpayer usually end with the Bill.
Let us do that. You must be forced to make sure their products.
Do not let "the basketball guilt."
House Bill 201 increases for vote in the House of representatives soon. We ask you to e-Mail-your representative and you ask to vote "No" on House Bill 201. Let's continue to blame us automobile manufacturers for providing safe cars.
Should a vehicle manufacturer, that a defective product made, which caused can move fault to the driver of the vehicle injuries in an accident?
Position: NR. The crash doctrine, a long-held principle is rooted in the case dating back to 1968, vehicle manufacturer obliges law to have their products in the case of a crash. Attempts to change this doctrine and vehicle manufacturers, move the blame for their defective products to someone else, how the driver that is causing the accident wrong and unfair, consumers. If in a frontal collision airbags don't provide a manufacturer might say, it's the driver's fault.
Vehicle manufacturers legal and financial penalties for their bad products to escape can shift the financial burden of caring for injured by faulty products on the taxpayers of the State of Florida, instead of the manufacturer. It provides no incentive for vehicle manufacturers of safer cars and the automotive industry, which already is the cost of liability claims in the price of the car will not harm.
History: 1968 The crash doctrine was invoked in a case Larsen vs. General Motors founded. The statement said in this case, that car crashes are inevitable and vehicle manufacturers responsible their cars as safe are a collision for the as possible.
In the year 2001 in Florida, in d ' Amario vs. detected a case of a motor vehicle accident and subsequent vehicle Ford Motor Company fire, Florida a clear distinction between error caused Supreme Court a car accident and a producer of a defective product liability, this has caused injuries advanced beyond the first accident.
In d ' Amario, the Court has held that a manufacturer only for improved injury is responsible. Thus a jury can not share error with the driver of the vehicle. The Supreme Court, said the jury focus should be on a defect if existed and whether the first collision causing it injury, not what or improves the behavior of the driver.
In the past, automakers have deep resistance to improve security, such as such as seat belts in the 1960s and airbags in the 1990's because of concerns about cost or marketing shown. It was only 10 years ago that tyre manufacturers had millions of defective tyres to recall Firestone, which had caused at least 200 deaths and 700 injuries. Since then, it has a national movement and accountability manufacturer, with Florida leading the way with its decision d ' Amario to make vehicles safer.
Car security
Vehicle manufacturers are not expected to design cars that are evidence of the accident. More than 30 years ago founded know case law that car not expected automobile manufacturers for the rolling stock which is subject to an "unreasonable risk of injury." occupant Florida receive vehicles in collisions and their responsibility to prevent injuries. Ford Motor Company says even in the user guide for your tour 2005: "36,700 crashes come every day."
It is also the reason vehicle manufacturers behavior exhaustive crash testing, a key indicator of organisations such as consumer reports, whether a vehicle is used. This is an important factor, with the consumer when buying a car. Consumers accept, were due to published reports on crash test performances, such as the developed vehicles such as the Honda Civic, high in place to protect against injury.
Escaping debt
The Florida Supreme Court established in the year 2001, that juries, not guilt between the automaker and the driver can share. Proposals for legislation but could undermine automakers blame for faulty products and the purpose of teaching to escape crash. Juries would be said, led to the accident to determine the fault for an extended injury, to consider such as such as a drunk driver. Supporters of this legislation claim without him will be negligent driver way off the hook. This is not true--negligent driver are still responsible for all injuries caused by their reckless behavior, but no injuries caused by defects from a car manufacturer.
Taxpayers foot the Bill
Another concern with reversal of the doctrine of the crash is the huge consequences for the citizens of Florida because rehabilitation costs to the taxpayer. Just because manufacturers are given responsibility for injuries to avoid a free pass, they cause does not mean that the injuries go away. Instead the victims consult the Bill for health care with public support and the taxpayers at the end. In addition the cost of the product built liability suits in the price for cars product manufacturers for decades.
Completed: The Florida legislature should not have the safety of Floridians took over after Alabama's vehicle manufacturers prefer. Legislative proposals that allow vehicle manufacturers to avoid liability for defective products, and there is no incentive to make products safer, are bad for Floridians. A big step backwards would this legislation in the search for safer products and an injustice for consumers and taxpayers.
