Comments on: Flood of Taser litigation

By: Gino

Gino — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:10:30 +0000

Tasers are loathsome things. They were touted as non-lethal weapons; an alternative to guns when deadly force is necessary. But instead of using tasers in lieu of guns, law enforcement simply lowered the threshold for when force could be used. Why not? It’s not like a taser will kill you or anything. It doesn’t even leave a mark. So now “passive resistance” is all it takes to get your ass zapped with 50,000 volts. It was a classic bait-and-switch. I wouldn’t be too bothered if the company that sells them went bankrupt. I might give one cheer to the lawyer who accomplishes it. Now, is there anything we can do about the companies marketing red light cameras to cash-strapped cities and counties before we get screwed again?

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 24 May 2007 13:02:50 +0000

Of course we should take the cost to innocent investors when evaluating the benefits and costs of product liability law. Stock market returns influence the willingness of investors to invest capital into new business. Here, meritless litigation has contributed to the destruction of investment, creating a disincentive to future investment, costing jobs in the long run.

If we shouldn’t take stock market results into account in product liability laws, why should we take it into account in securities laws? The excesses of product liability law does a lot more harm to investors than the immunities in securities laws that I have defended, resulting in Lane posting dishonest smears of me on two separate blogs.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Thu, 24 May 2007 13:01:55 +0000

Yes, Justinian, you are.

The investors are the owners of the company. By virtue of baseless law suits (and I think the tort bar’s 0-45 record in such suits pretty much establishes that they were baseless), they have been measurably damaged.

Shouldn’t we favor a system whereby the mere filing of a suit shouldn’t damage the defendant?

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Thu, 24 May 2007 12:29:00 +0000

I’m sympathetic to the investors – really I am. But I don’t think we should take the stock market into consideration when we determine product liability laws. Am I wrong?

By: jb

jb — Thu, 24 May 2007 12:10:03 +0000

What would the effects of some sort of Stare Decisis-equivalent in civil litigation be?

In this case, that would make Taser’s 45 victories carry some more weight in the 46th case, but could easily support incorrect theories of liability as well.