Topic: Should a Manufacturer of a product be protected against third party law suits.

[gonzo]

Do you think that  a car manufacturer should be protected against third party law suits.  For example:  A car is purchased from a dealer.  The purchaser takes the car and starts running over people killing and injuring them.  The injured and dead peoples families (third party) get together and sue the manufacturer of the car because it was used to kill and injure people.  They didn't sue the dealer (second party).  They sued the manufacturer (first party).  Do you think this should be legal?

[RUGER]

no. they are just money hungry bastards. i realize that they lost their relative...and they want some kind of compinsation. no amount of money will bring them back.

its the same with firearms...suing firearm manufactures because a (glock, hk, ruger, s&w, etc) was used during the commission of a crime is bull crap.
its just a tool used to commit the crime and should not be held accountable...the person did the crime...not the manufacture.

happy trails
rich *ruger*  

[Willy Mammoth]

DITO

That's a bunch of  :bull crap:  they should be run over with the same car. 

[Duffil]

yeah, thats BS...that truly is just a bunch of money hungry rejects...it works the same in any example, too, not just automobiles...I wonder when we are going to start holding people responsible for their own actions again.

[brainlessfool]

For the exampals given  yes it should not be aloud. butt some times it should. say your driving a pinto! and some one rear ends you, and you both die. the family of the ppl that banged your butt sue ford cuze the pinto was not made right. way below ind. standers.

sue away! it was junk and never should have been on the market.

[WHITE_TRASH]

Bad expample brainless.  I was wheeling a 78 pinto wagon long before I ever got a 4x.  I never blew up.... 

[brainlessfool]

Bad expample brainless.  I was wheeling a 78 pinto wagon long before I ever got a 4x.  I never blew up.... 

Ho yeah? anit that you in your avatar? by car or by stupidity it's all the same!   BF-->       <-- WT

[gonzo [OP]]

For the exampals given yes it should not be aloud. butt some times it should. say your driving a pinto! and some one rear ends you, and you both die. the family of the ppl that banged your butt sue ford cuze the pinto was not made right. way below ind. standers.

sue away! it was junk and never should have been on the market.

I the case of the product being manufactured wrong and killing people, yes sue away, but the topic is presented as the car is working the way it is supposed too.  It was used to run over/hit people and injure or kill them.  Should those people be able to sue the car manufacturer?

[brainlessfool]

the topic was presanted as  "should a manufacture be portected from trud party law suits"

 I think, some time yes. and some times no. and for Wt At no time should he be protected from any law suit. 

[unclejpl4x4]

NO

[gonzo [OP]]

NO

Why?

[Lady Di]

Frivilous lawsuits are out of hand, people should be criminally resposible for wasting the courts time with idiotic lawsuits.

Suing any manufacturer of anything that is inadvertantly used by some maniac to kill others is outrageous.

If some guy goes on a rampage beating people to death with a baseball bat the victims family would sue the manufactorer of the bat???

What about the underwear the person was wearing at the time of the crime, maybe his BVD's were constricting his nads and it set him off. Might was well sue Fruit of the Loom while they're at it.

Freekin' stupid   

[Ferg]

NO

So your saying that if I hit you with a shovel, you should be allowed to sue the shovel maker for improper usage?
That's just frigging STUPID.

[gonzo [OP]]

So your saying that if I hit you with a shovel, you should be allowed to sue the shovel maker for improper usage?
That's just frigging STUPID.

[decyfer]

HELL YEAH they can sue. no not really. i just wanted to be the first to say they could. its not the car companys fault that someone ran over some people using there car. what the hell. could i sue a gum company because i stept in gum and now my leather shoe is wrecked. no. no. no.

[germ]

I have to agree. There is no way a manufacturer should be held liable, unless they were negligent somehow in the first place. As the example reads, there is no way they should be sued. If however, they advertised their vehicles by showing that...then there is some culpability there.

Frivolous law suits are ruining the leagal system.

Erik

[lilbuddy]

no. they are just money hungry bastards. i realize that they lost their relative...and they want some kind of compinsation. no amount of money will bring them back.

its the same with firearms...suing firearm manufactures because a (glock, hk, ruger, s&w, etc) was used during the commission of a crime is bull crap.
its just a tool used to commit the crime and should not be held accountable...the person did the crime...not the manufacture.

happy trails
rich *ruger*  

Well said    I totally agree with you.

[Rocksurfer]

I would say no to your example, the vehicle was not used as intended and the manufacturer should not be liable, that would be like saying I sued the T.V. manufacturer when someone got mad at their football team and threw it out the window and it struck someone on the street. Now if I read into this correctly, no the gun manufacturers should not be liable for  someone shooting another person and killing them, yes it can be used to kill in its intent but so can a knife..... a steak knife and nobody's suing the steak knife manufactures.

[unclejpl4x4]

So your saying that if I hit you with a shovel, you should be allowed to sue the shovel maker for improper usage?
That's just frigging STUPID.

piss thats what im saying no too