Major new verdict threatens to bankrupt John Alialoro’s company, if not overturned

Peter Huber’s book, to which I linked, explains clearly the ways in which you are using slippery arguments that have less to do with justice or common law than with the growing efforts by trial lawyers to exploit the success of productive companies with large “punitive” awards that are completely out of proportion with injuries sustained from using their products. A $2 million dollar award would have been an injury claim. A $66 million award is rank opportunism and legalized theft.

It is not possible to design and market innovative products in a competitive environment while also making it completely impossible for someone to be injured. If you manufacture exercise equipment for 20 years and only a few people become gravely injured from using your product in a somewhat improper way, then you have an excellent track record of nothing like “shoddy” engineering.

If you haven’t noticed, people like paying less for their products, rather than more. They want greater variety, innovation, and features, and all for less money than it would have cost them the year before. While successfully providing this service to willing customers, it is impossible to always successfully navigate the fine line of what will be considered completely safe by some court ten years from now.

1) Judges are part of the judicial branch. Depending on the jurisdiction, they are a) appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature or b) elected. Since the judicial branch is one of the three branches of government, the implied claim that they are not part of the state is erroneous.

2) Modern tort law does is not fundamentally based on theory of fault. Rather, it is based on a theory of compensation. The theory goes, in short: someone was injured – they need compensation – look to the causal chain to see who is in the best position to compensate. This is why the larger pockets usually get targeted (they are at the top of causal chain – without the product, there is no injury). The bar is very low in showing evidence that the product was malfunctioning. The presumption is favor of the plaintiff, as all tort claims begin. Thus, it is up to the defendant to show that his product had nothing to do with the injury. Since, in most product liability cases, most, if not all, of the available factual evidence exists solely with the plaintiff, it is very difficult (if not impossible) for the defendant to prove that the product was not defective, inherently safe, and was misused.

I propose, in the spirit of our current political climate, that we ban all exercise equipment. Just as New York is banning salt, trans-fat, and smoking, to protect the welfare of those not competent to do it themeselves, I think it is only in the best interest of the “public good” that we ban exercise equipment.

> Make better exercise equipment

You don’t know this, do you?

It’s possible for someone to make something genuinely unsafe. It’s also possible to make something which “the idiot behind the wheel” used in an unsafe manner, in which case the manufacturer should -not- be liable.

We all have read many times of cases in which a woman sues McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee on herself, not because the cup was defective. And of many frivolous lawsuits and big awards. So it’s pretty clear that people with “big pockets” constantly lose millions in the courts unjustly.

(I haven’t personally used Cybex’s machines, but I’ve used Nautilus and others and it seems you’d really have to work at it to make any of them topple on yourself.)

Peter Huber’s book, to which I linked, explains clearly the ways in which you are using slippery arguments that have less to do with justice or common law than with the growing efforts by trial lawyers to exploit the success of productive companies with large “punitive” awards that are completely out of proportion with injuries sustained from using their products. A $2 million dollar award would have been an injury claim. A $66 million award is rank opportunism and legalized theft.

It is not possible to design and market innovative products in a competitive environment while also making it completely impossible for someone to be injured. If you manufacture exercise equipment for 20 years and only a few people become gravely injured from using your product in a somewhat improper way, then you have an excellent track record of nothing like “shoddy” engineering.

If you haven’t noticed, people like paying less for their products, rather than more. They want greater variety, innovation, and features, and all for less money than it would have cost them the year before. While successfully providing this service to willing customers, it is impossible to always successfully navigate the fine line of what will be considered completely safe by some court ten years from now.

1) Judges are part of the judicial branch. Depending on the jurisdiction, they are a) appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature or b) elected. Since the judicial branch is one of the three branches of government, the implied claim that they are not part of the state is erroneous.

2) Modern tort law does is not fundamentally based on theory of fault. Rather, it is based on a theory of compensation. The theory goes, in short: someone was injured – they need compensation – look to the causal chain to see who is in the best position to compensate. This is why the larger pockets usually get targeted (they are at the top of causal chain – without the product, there is no injury). The bar is very low in showing evidence that the product was malfunctioning. The presumption is favor of the plaintiff, as all tort claims begin. Thus, it is up to the defendant to show that his product had nothing to do with the injury. Since, in most product liability cases, most, if not all, of the available factual evidence exists solely with the plaintiff, it is very difficult (if not impossible) for the defendant to prove that the product was not defective, inherently safe, and was misused.

I propose, in the spirit of our current political climate, that we ban all exercise equipment. Just as New York is banning salt, trans-fat, and smoking, to protect the welfare of those not competent to do it themeselves, I think it is only in the best interest of the “public good” that we ban exercise equipment.

> Make better exercise equipment

You don’t know this, do you?

It’s possible for someone to make something genuinely unsafe. It’s also possible to make something which “the idiot behind the wheel” used in an unsafe manner, in which case the manufacturer should -not- be liable.

We all have read many times of cases in which a woman sues McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee on herself, not because the cup was defective. And of many frivolous lawsuits and big awards. So it’s pretty clear that people with “big pockets” constantly lose millions in the courts unjustly.

(I haven’t personally used Cybex’s machines, but I’ve used Nautilus and others and it seems you’d really have to work at it to make any of them topple on yourself.)