Do I feel chagrinned? Well, I think you are a little full of yourself. You think you have special qualifications in crossbow cases because you serve as an expert in cases involving computers? What else does this qualify you as an expert for? And this makes you smarter than a juror how? Do you feel a little bit chagrined for being called out for being a blowhard? Just a little?

But let’s change it completely. Let’s pretend you were an expert in something, I don’t know, relevant like making crossbows. Do you think criminologists should be the only jurors in a criminal case? Just high tech guys for the Apple-Samsung wars? Here’s the thing: that not how the Constitution works.

You guys love democracy but only if we get stop the dummies from getting a vote at the ballot box or on a jury.

Really Richard? Your expertise make you more qualified than the rest of us to serve or a jury? My goodness. I still can’t get over it.

No it is not a question of them lying, Ron. Rather it is a question of coming up with a different design for the product. Since there are many tradeoffs that go into any product design, it is not difficult for an expert to come up with an alternate way of designing the product that does not have the feature in question. Thus the jury is shown that the product could have been designed differently. What they are not shown is whether the alternate design is something people would want to buy. No product can be completely idiot-proofed. Thus a product does not have to be defective to injure someone who ignores the warning labels and uses it incorrectly.

However, since you sarcastically asked me how you could gain the wisdom I have, let me answer your question. Maybe you could start by providing expert witness services as I do (for computer patent infringement lawsuits that deal with computer communications.) So yes, I do have a little more insight into how expert witnesses operate. Now don’t you feel chagrinned?

1. The stated purpose of this blog is to chronicle the high cost of our legal system.

2. The cost is high because we have become a sue happy country because no matter what happens to anybody it is always going to be someone else’s fault and that someone else, regardless of the facts, should be made to pay for their sins.

3. There is an abundance of lawyers ready to see that number two is carried out to the extreme, which results in the need for number one

4. In almost, if not all, legislative bodies a preponderance of the members are lawyers, ego the sausages (laws) that come out of their meat grinders called legi sessions are slanted toward continuing this trend.

5. Studies have shown that the lower the ratio of lawyers to the general population the more lawsuits are filed, in America the ratio is already ridiculously low and yet number five almost always results in more and bigger law schools even though we already have too many lawyers and are desperate for doctors.

6 So there you have it Ron, you and your kind are the problem, not the solution. If you want answers might I suggest a mirror.

7. And finally, if I might pass along a lesson taught to me by our host, character assassinations of other commenters are not only counter productive, but only serve to accentuate the weakness of your argument.

Can any of these experts ever make sense in any cases, Richard? Or they all just across the board liars? Is it just so obvious to you that they are just making it up? Please explain how you are able to figure this out so easily where jurors get so confounded. What do you have that the American people don’ t and what can we all do to gain the wisdom you have to see through it all?

I guess sarcasm is lost on you, Ron.

What you need for a case to ever make it to a jury is someone who is in the industry, who understands the science and safety of product at issue, and can give an opinion that the design was defective because a serious risk of injury could have been avoided in a way that is cost effective.

And these selfless individuals just appear in court to give their expert opinions for free for the good of society on how the product could have been designed to save injuries and lives. Or did you leave out the fact that they were hired by lawyers at $500 or more per hour to testify that if only those evil manufacturers were not so greedy they would have listened to these experts and spent the extra 0.25 cents to prevent all of those injuries.

I am not a crossbow manufacturer so I am not the expert here.

Ron?

But, Richard, that is not how cases are made. Lawyers don’t redesign products. What you need for a case to ever make it to a jury is someone who is in the industry, who understands the science and safety of product at issue, and can give an opinion that the design was defective because a serious risk of injury could have been avoided in a way that is cost effective. A lawyer’s view and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My concern – lost on Gitarcarver – is that there was an immediate rush to judgment on the facts of this case. Gun to my head, I’ll be this is not a viable defective design claim. But unless you are an expert on this like Gitarcarver is (again need to see the list of what he is not an expert in), then you just don’ t know.

I find prejudging cases without more information to be a concern.

You don’t have an answer the the initial set of questions and facts so you have to come up with some hypothetical to make it seem the company should do more because in your mind, no one is ever accountable for not following instructions, warning labels, warnings, or even deliberately taking steps to avoid a safety device that would have prevented the very injury this guy caused.

That’s that point.

What I find truly amazing is the brilliance of lawyers. Not only are they experts in the law but they are also capable of redesigning products so that they are absolutely safe. In fact if we gave over all manufacturing to lawyers there would never be a single individual who was injured using any product and it would all be accomplished for less than 1 dollar.