> It’s stupid. <
I gotta agree. The ruling was correct, but the reasoning was not. The court seems to be saying that manufacturers can be held liable if the legislature allows it.
That would be an obvious government overreach, kind of like holding Ford liable for a guy who drives drunk while in a Ford.
That's what I was thinking. As soon as you start holding manufacturers liable for how customers use their products and services you end all commerce. All commerce.
Why make a firearm if someone uses it for a crime and I get held liable for their actions?
Why make a car if someone drives drunk, kills someone and I get held liable for their actions?
Why make running shoes if someone mugs someone, then outruns police wearing them and I get held liable for their actions?
Why run a fast food place if someone over-eats there, gets fat and dies and I get held liable for their actions?
Why make a computer, if someone uses it to commit bank fraud and I get held liable for their actions?
And on and on through countless examples - virtually all commerce comes to a screeching halt the moment you set that precedent.
For you lib lurkers out there thinking "That's silly, why would we hold Door-Dash liable for the death of someone who choked on the food they delivered?" Exactly. It is silly. Why would you try to hold a firearm manufacturer liable either? There is no difference, logically, rationally between any of these examples. Just because you don't like a product or service is no justification for singling it out. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot. That is one of the pillars of leftist behavior. If a freedom loving conservative doesn't like something, they just won't use it. If a lefty "liberal" doesn't like something or is afraid of something, they don't want anyone to have it.