Reply #97: How about if you're hit by a drunk driver?

[Euromutt]

Were you planning to sue the distillery, the car manufacturer, or both? I mean, clearly the manufacturers of both alcohol beverages and motor vehicles must be aware that their products end up being sold to people who combine the two, and I'm sure somebody would be willing to make a case (and convince a jury) that the manufacturers "make no reasonable attempt" to prevent their respective products from being used by consumers of the other product.

Indeed, given that I quite frequently see billboards advertising alcoholic beverages along county roads and freeways, it seems to me that brewers and distillers are deliberately aiming their publicity at people who drive motor vehicles! Isn't that willfully irresponsible of them?

And "overproduction"? Car manufacturers know all about that. Are you familiar with what a "limited edition" model is? When the new year's models are about to come out, manufacturers try to sell the remainder of this year's models by throwing in some extra features at no extra cost, in the hopes that a prospective customer would rather buy that than wait a month for the new model.
But why do manufacturers have cars from this year left over? Could it be that they are--gasp!--overproducing?

The fact is, of course, that overproduction is simply a side effect of market competition. Manufacturers of any class of product--be it cars, guns, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, furniture, chewing gum, fizzy drinks, you name it--are constantly jockeying for market share, which means they collectively end up creating a supply that exceeds demand. That's good for the consumer, because when supply exceeds demand, prices go down. (I have long maintained that the law of supply and demand is the only thing in economics for which there is empirical evidence, and everything that makes sense is a variation on that theme. But I digress.) We even have a word--"remaindered"--that specifically denotes copies of a particular book left over in the publisher's hands after the book has ceased to sell. I.e. overproduction; it happens in every industry.

Theoretically, it might be possible for the gun manufacturers (or anyone else) to get together, assess what market demand is likely to be, and coordinate their production so that they collectively don't make more than they can sell. The thing is, that would be a violation of anti-trust law.

From the Charlotte Observer article:

The jury's finding for the plaintiffs is historic.

Well, it would be, if the article had bothered to identify the plaintiffs, the defendants, or the venue. Oddly, it does none of those things. For all I know, this one got overturned on appeal, but we'll never know since the Observer writer didn't think it was necessary to actually provide any information that would identify the case in question.

Why do you think it was such a priority for the NRA to rally their members against manufacturer lawsuits? Did you really think it was because they were against "frivolous" claims? Haven't you figured out yet that when a corporation tries to remove your right to sue, it's because they're afraid of legitimate lawsuits against them?

I've got news for you: the NRA doesn't represent firearm manufacturers, it represent its members. Yes, firearm manufacturers support the NRA (mainly by offering partial or complete payment of a year's membership with every firearm), but that can be readily explained that by doing so, they secure their customer base. The reason the NRA agitates for measures like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is that the firearms manufacturing industry operates on fairly thin profit margins, and given that civil suits can take years to resolve, even if the manufacturers won every case, the legal costs would bankrupt them before they could be reimbursed (which is precisely the objective). And if every gun manufacturer were systematically driven out of business, the NRA's members wouldn't be able to buy new guns or get spare parts to replace the worn parts on guns they already own.

AS the Charlotte Observer article points out:

Note that some of the developing flurry of anti-gun lawsuits is coming from a consortium of lawyers formed for the specific purpose of seeking actions to file.

Much or all of the balance being mounted by local governments in pursuit of some elected official's personal agenda (at the taxpayers' expense), rather than by private citizens.