Greedy Trial Lawyer
"Do No Harm" Is Manufacturer's Duty
Category: Seeing Clearly Now
Chris Rangel, at RangelMD.com, discusses whether large verdicts against negligent or reckless corporations have an impact upon their future conduct - a fair discussion to have.
But, Chris takes a bridge too far when he says, Ensuring that as few people get hurt as possible is not part of the job of a company.
It appears massively simplistic to believe that corporations would "think twice" before developing a dangerous product. Ironically, corporations not only think twice, they have entire risk and prediction analyses about the potential liability of every consumer product. If the risk is too high then they stop. If the sales from a product are likely to exceed losses from any successful litigation then they proceed.Companies don't really care if a few people get hurt using their products as long as profits are not hurt as well. Ensuring that as few people get hurt as possible is not the job of a company, as bad as that sounds. It's the job of regulatory agencies in government.
Since Chris is an M.D., I'll put it this way: First, do no harm. Chris learned this in medical school. It applies to every individual and every corporation in America. No new product should expose its users to an unreasonable risk of harm. Just as no competent physician should place a patient in the path of an unreasonable risk.
I do not believe it is solely the job of regulatory agencies to protect medical patients, and I do not believe it is solely the job of such agencies to police the marketplace for dangerous and defective products.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/324
Comments
I look forward to Greedy Trial Lawyer's demand that all automobile manufacturers shut down, since cars kill tens of thousands of people a year, and thus violate the "First, do no harm" principle. He probably believes punitive damages are appropriate, because the manufacturers *knew* that the automobiles would be driven at high rates of speed exceeding 20 mph, resulting in occasional fatal accidents.
Furrfu.
Posted by: Ted Frank at September 5, 2006 09:11 AM
Allow me to repeat myself: No new product should expose its users to an unreasonable risk of harm.
Every service or product carries with it some reasonable risk of harm. It is the duty of the service provider or manufacturer to avoid exposure to what society would consider an unreasonable risk of injury. For example, most of us would consider a laptop battery which bursts into flames to represent an unreasonable risk of harm.
I do demand that no manufacturer produce a vehicle in violation of this principle. I would seek punitive damages against a manufacturer who *knew* he was in violation of this principle and still sent his product into the marketplace.
Ted's straw man is not me. I don't know why he implies that it is. Maybe, for dramatic effect. His inflamatory rhetoric could be compared to the laptop batteries that sometimes produce more heat than power.
Posted by: Greedy Trial Lawyer at September 5, 2006 09:59 AM