Results (
English) 2:
[Copy]Copied!
In contrast to the argument, some believe that strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has criticized the willingness to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main argument used is that the threat of strict liability strangles innovation and. enterprise; manufacturers, it is argued, will be less likely to launch ground-breaking new products if they are afraid of being sued if those products turn out to be dangerous, through no fault of the manufacturer, or that the threat of strict liability might. lead to manufacturers taking excessive care, so that the costs of the product are pushed up so high that they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products. On the other hand some people. believes that the argument of strict liability for defective products is not a good idea. The British press has admitted to the idea to sue over injuries caused by defective products. The main reason is the threat of strict liability has put pressure on enterprise and innovation. If producers are afraid of being sued when it launches new products at risk of harm. Those products are becoming endangered through no fault of the manufacturer or could lead to the threat of strict liability of the manufacturer. Caring too much increases the cost of the product to be pushed higher, so they are priced out of the market. It hardly compares with the risk of people being killed or injured by unsafe products.
Being translated, please wait..