Lawsuits and the End of Sanity in America :: Exploratory Essays

Lawsuits and the End of Sanity in AmericaNot having experienced more of the past is a mixed blessing. Whats grotesque, shocking and unheard of to older Americans exponent seem normal, perhaps just a bit curious, to untrieder Americans. For example, become year New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial brought suit against hero manufacturers to find carnage costs in his city. This January, Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell met with his advisors to consider whether the urban center should carry out gun manufacturers for creating a public nuisance since guns were used in Philadelphias 400-plus homicides. The City would seek to recover the cost of everything from cleaning up after bloody murders to the costs of court and social workers for victims. Mayor Rendells imagination has overly led him to discover a new liability for tobacco companies since nigh of Philadelphias fires have perfunctory smoking as their origin, why not sue tobacco companies to recover the citys fire losses?Decades ago anyone suggesting bringing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for homicides, or tobacco companies for fires caused by careless smoking would have been considered a prime candidate for a lunatic asylum. If one generalizes from the lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers because pot use their product to commit murder and mayhem, and against tobacco companies for smoking illnesses and fires caused by careless smoking, he would conclude that people are not to be held amenable for anything they do. It is the inanimate object, while incapable of acting, that is responsible. That is, a gun is responsible for murder, not the guns user. A cigarette is responsible for a fire, not the careless smoker. That being the case, it logically follows that manufacturers of the offending inanimate object are culpable. after all had the manufacture not produced the gun or cigarette there would be fewer homicides, smoking-related illnesses and fires caused by careless smoking.This its-not-my-fault p rinciple could be broadened to allow just about anything. If a scantily clad young gentlewoman is prancing along the street, distracts my attention, and I have an automobile collision, the its-not-my-fault principle would hold the young lady liable for my accident. But she might make the case that it is the manufacturer of her mini-skirt who is really liable. If we Americans were to carry the its-not-my-fault principle to its logical conclusion, we would virtually guarantee poverty. in that respect would be little production. Why should I manufacture irons if I could be held liable for anything a person might do with the iron, including infringement or leaving the iron unattended thereby causing a fire.