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.

โต้แย้งหักล้างข้อเสนอแนะว่าผู้ผลิตอยู่ในตำแหน่งที่ดีที่สุดที่จะประกันกับการบาดเจ็บจากผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มีข้อบกพร่อง เท่าที่ได้รับบาดเจ็บที่สถานที่ให้บริการเป็นห่วงว่าอาจจะจริง เพราะหลายคนมีประกันสำหรับรถยนต์และเนื้อหาที่ใช้ในครัวเรือนหนี้สินที่เข้มงวดสำหรับความเสียหายต่อทรัพย์สินดังกล่าวอาจจะไม่มีอะไรมากไปกว่าการประกันคู่ อย่างไรก็ตามข้อโต้แย้งมากปรับตัวลดลงเมื่อมันมาถึงการบาดเจ็บส่วนบุคคล มันสามารถเป็นที่ถกเถียงกันว่าตั้งแต่ความเสี่ยงของการนวัตกรรมผลิตภัณฑ์ที่มาพร้อมกับศักยภาพสำหรับผลประโยชน์ทางสังคมขนาดใหญ่ในสังคมมากกว่าการผลิตของแต่ละบุคคลควรจ่ายเมื่อมีความเสี่ยงที่ก่อให้เกิดอันตรายในรูปแบบของสวัสดิการมากกว่าความเสียหายที่เกิดการละเมิด อาร์กิวเมนต์สำหรับนี้เป็นเหตุผลในการยกเลิกการดำเนินการบาดเจ็บส่วนบุคคลในความประมาทเป็นหนึ่งที่แข็งแกร่ง 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. argument refutes the suggestion that the manufacturer is in the best position to insure. with injuries from defective products. As far as the injury is concerned that the property might be true. Because many people are insured for household contents, car and strict liability for damage to property, it may be nothing more than a double insurance. However, the argument is weaker when it comes to personal injury. It can be argued that since the risk of developing innovative products with the potential for social benefits are huge social, rather than individual productivity should pay when there is a risk of causing harm in the form of welfare. More than damages for violations. The argument for this as a reason to dismiss the action in negligence, personal injury, a strong one. 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.

.Argue against suggestions that manufacturers in the best position to insure against injury product with defects. As it gets hurt the property concerned that may be true.However, the argument more dropped when it comes to personal injuries.It can be argued that since the risk of product innovation that comes with the potential for social benefits in a large society more production of each person should pay when there are risks pose a danger.Form of welfare than damage violation.The argument for this reason to cancel the personal injury in negligence is one strong. But it must provide good welfare.