Lawsuit / personal responsibility

[griz]

Here is the article:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/69605

Sad and gruesome story, a four year old kid was accidently killed when run over by a lawn mower.  Apparently the owners of the day care center didn't have a big enough insurance policy (My speculation) so the family sued the mower company.  They said the company should have invented a blade brake to stop the blades when the mower backed up.  The jury went for it to "send a message".

How did we get to this point where the guy driving the mower bears no responsibility but the people who make the mower have to come up with two million dollars?

[Live Free Or Die]

Ugh.  I'm sure this was the lawyer's idea, but the parents (heretofore presumably sympathetic characters in this tragedy) went along with it.  Unacceptable.  The "somebody has to pay" mentality disgusts me.  It's dangerous when the jury holds that view.

With all due respect to the grieving parents, I hope this decision is overturned on appeal.  No amount of money will make up for their loss, and to be perfectly blunt, they don't deserve a dime from the lawn mower manufacturer (or possibly from anyone).

[The Rabbi]

The theory for this is as follows:
The boy was killed in a tragic accidence.  His parents deserve compensation.  The party with the deepest pockets is the lawn mower maker.  Ergo, the lawn mower maker needs to step up and make good.  I wish I were making this up but it is how the tort system sees it.
The recent defense of firearms makers act went some way to restoring any sense of actual responsibility in tort cases.  I wish there lots more of that.  Unfortunately the plaintiff's attorneys are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, campaign givers.