A further argument refutes the sugg

A further argument refutes the suggestion that producers are in the best position to insure against injury from defective products. As far as injury to property is concerned, that may be true – since many people have insurance for cars and household contents, strict liability for damage to such property may be nothing more than double insurance. However, the argument is much weaker when it comes to personal injury. It can be argued that since the risks of product innovation came with the potential for huge social benefits, society, rather than individual producers, should pay when the risks cause harm, in the form of welfare benefits rather than tort damages. The argument for this as a reason for abolishing personal injury actions in negligence is a strong one, but it would require much better welfare provision. The suggestion that within the current system, product liability actions should be scrapped because people can claim benefits as a result of their injuries would be a recipe for lowering safety standards.

การโต้แย้งหักล้างข้อเสนอแนะว่าผู้ผลิตอยู่ในตำแหน่งที่ดีที่สุดที่จะประกันกับการบาดเจ็บจากผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มีข้อบกพร่อง อาจจะจริงสำหรับการได้รับบาดเจ็บที่สถานที่ให้บริการ เพราะคนที่มีประกันสำหรับรถยนต์ โดยเฉพาะเนื้อหาที่ใช้ในครัวเรือนในหนี้สินที่เข้มงวดสำหรับความเสียหายต่อทรัพย์สินดังกล่าวอาจจะไม่มีอะไรมากไปกว่าคู่ประกัน อย่างไรก็ตามข้อโต้แย้งสามารถปรับตัวลดลงเมื่อมีการบาดเจ็บส่วนบุคคล มันเป็นที่ถกเถียงกันว่าตั้งแต่ความเสี่ยงของการนวัตกรรมผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มาพร้อมกับศักยภาพสำหรับผลประโยชน์ทางสังคม ในสังคมขนาดใหญ่การผลิตของแต่ละบุคคลควรจ่ายเมื่อมีความเสี่ยงที่ก่อให้เกิดอันตรายในรูปแบบของสวัสดิการมากกว่าความเสียหายที่เกิดการละเมิด ข้อโต้แย้งสำหรับสิ่งนี้เป็นเหตุผลในการยกเลิกการดำเนินการบาดเจ็บส่วนบุคคลในความประมาทเป็นหนึ่งที่ต้องเข้มงวด แต่มันจะต้องมีการให้สวัสดิการที่ดีมาก ข้อเสนอแนะว่าในระบบปัจจุบันการกระทำความรับผิดต่อสินค้าควรจะทิ้งเพราะคนที่สามารถเรียกร้องผลประโยชน์ที่เป็นผลจากการบาดเจ็บของพวกเขาจะเป็นสูตรสำหรับการลดมาตรฐานความปลอดภัย

Results (English) 2:

A further argument refutes the suggestion that producers are in the best position to insure against injury from defective products. As far as injury to property is concerned, that may be true - since many people have insurance for cars and household contents, strict liability for damage. to such property may be nothing more than double insurance. However, the argument is much weaker when it comes to personal injury. It can be argued that since the risks of product innovation came with the potential for huge social benefits, society, rather than individual. producers, should pay when the risks cause harm, in the form of welfare benefits rather than tort damages. The argument for this as a reason for abolishing personal injury actions in negligence is a strong one, but it would require much better welfare provision. The. suggestion that within the current system, product liability actions should be scrapped because people can claim benefits as a result of their injuries would be a recipe for lowering safety standards. The argument refutes the suggestion that the manufacturer is in the best position to take. Insurance against injuries from defective products. May be true for injuries to property. Because people have insurance for the car. The content of household appliances in strict liability for damage to such property may be nothing more than a pair of insurance. However, an argument can be dropped when a personal injury. It was argued that since the risk of developing innovative products with the potential for social benefits. In large-scale production of the individual should pay when there is risk to cause harm in the form of welfare than the losses abuse. The argument for this is the reason for the cancellation action in negligence, personal injury is one that must be rigorous. But it has to be a very good welfare. The suggestion that the current system of product liability actions should be abandoned because people can claim benefits as a result of their injuries is a recipe for lowering safety standards.

Results (English) 3:

A further argument refutes the suggestion that producers are in the best position to insure against injury from defective. Products. As far as injury to property, is concerned that may be true - since many people have insurance for cars and household. Contents strict liability, for damage to such property may be nothing more than double, However insurance.The argument is much weaker when it comes to personal injury. It can be argued that since the risks of product innovation. Came with the potential for huge, social benefits society rather than, individual producers should pay, when the risks cause. Harm in the, form of welfare benefits rather than tort damages.The argument for this as a reason for abolishing personal injury actions in negligence is a, strong one but it would require. Much better welfare provision. The suggestion that within the current system product liability, actions should be scrapped. Because people can claim benefits as a result of their injuries would be a recipe for lowering safety standards.

.The argument against suggestions that manufacturers in the best position to insure with การบาดเจ็บจาก defective products. It may be true for the wounded property. Because people with insurance for automobiles.However, arguments can be dropped when personal injuries. It is argued that since the risk of product innovation, along with the potential for social benefits.The argument for this reason to cancel the personal injury in negligence is one that must be strict. But it must provide good welfare.