“Thing is, when you build a car you are, by definition, risking the life of every single person who buys one or rides in one.”
That argument is tendentious at best. It is clear that there is a vast difference between selling a car that one has every reason to think is suitable for its intended purpose, and selling a car that one *knows* is defective.
Did that really need explaining?
“But we’ve more precisely defined liability than that.”
Two approaches to this statement:
1. Yes, and selling a car that one *knows* is defective rises to any reasonable limen for liability.
2. Liability is one thing; morality may be another, if a system is corrupt.
It is immoral to sell a car that one *knows* has a defect that might kill the buyer. An adolescent might take the time to list possible exceptions to this rule—what if the buyer knows the car is defective, et cetera—but none of those exceptions applies here.
Problem is, as best as I can tell, the car was no more defective than the Toyota with the gas pedal that could be controlled by a shifting carpet. The pin in the ignition worked as designed but could release sooner than was optimal for some circumstances. If they had sold only 1,000 of these cars, statistically, the “defect” would never have exposed itself.