On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might disagree with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: Automatic Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of other technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but for" litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products liability cases.
Actually almost every one of these examples were DEVELOPED either 'out of the blue' by the industry or by the 'off-road/racing' groups, not by any factor related to litigation (though their ACCEPTANCE in the regular consumer market was - thought those are not the same beaties by a long shot). Most definitely these were NOT in responce to litigation. ABS - Road racing cars (ala Le Mans) Crumple Zones - Indy style racing and aircraft Safety Glass - invented in the 20's, in responce to accidents not lawyers Shoulder/passive belts - racing since the turn of the century Bumpers and air bags being the primary exception in your examples. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------