It resulted in a lost product liability action against the pool maker in a recent Rhode Island case [Abnormal Use]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 2 comments }
What? An idiot actually loses a case concerning her idiocy? Say it ain’t so.
Although the Court addressed Plaintiff’s alternative theories regarding proximate causation (that the coping was unstable and too narrow, such that she lost her balance, or, alternatively, that the coping should have been designed to prevent anyone from standing on it altogether
I guess the pool manufacturer should have covered the coping with spikes to prevent anyone from standing on it. I love it how the lawyers are allowed to make up any number of incompatible alternative theories and hope that the court will find one of them to be plausible.
Further, Plaintiff’s argument that her intoxication should be taken into consideration was also rejected.
By this logic, if you get in a car and drive drunk it is the car manufacturer’s fault for not preventing you from being able to start the car.
Comments on this entry are closed.