I think auto fatalities per passenger mile were dropping long before Nader. Think about improvements in windows, steering columns, brakes, steering precision, roads, driver training, etc. It would be nice to find statistics on auto deaths by year going back in time.
However, it’s certainly possible that product liability law may also have played an important role in this improvement.
december: I think auto fatalities per passenger mile were dropping long before Nader. Think about improvements in windows, steering columns, brakes, steering precision, roads, driver training, etc.
Auto fatalities per passenger mile were indeed mostly stable or dropping during the 1950’s. Still, in 1959 annual auto fatalities had doubled over the course of the decade, reaching about 40,000. The current level—with millions more cars on the road and average annual passenger miles increased by orders of magnitude—is only about 43,000.
Saying that we might not need the threat of liability lawsuits to protect advances in safety sounds a bit naive, though. Consider the testimony of Public Citizen president and former NHTSA administrator Joan Claybrook:
Again I say, Humbug! There is no evidence that automobile mfgs. want to kill their customers-do you think FORD deliberately wants to build unsafe cars? You have to be stupid to believe such a naive arguement!
Take mercedes-Benz, widely acknowledged to make some of the safest cars made in the world…they still get sued! And, I maintain, no lawsuit against M-B has EVER contributed to any safety enhancement of their cars.
“safe” cars are built because the CUSTOMER wants them! -not becuase of lawsuits by greedy lawyers.
I agree that it would be naive, but AFAIK nobody on this board is saying that.
Noone is saying that they “want” to kill their customers. However, that does not mean that they want to spend, say, $500 on safety devices that they don’t think they will be able to market effectively enough to achieve a $500 cost premium in the marketplace. (There are some companies like Volvo and maybe M-B who have tried to go for the drivers who consider safety a big issue in their purchases but certainly not all the companies have.)
Companies will make decisions trading off cost and safety all the time and to claim otherwise is simply silly.
I mean, I don’t believe that the car manufacturers want to pollute our air and cause the contribution that global warming that their big inefficient SUVs cause. However, their desire to make a buck comes into play too. That is what happens when you have a market society, particularly when the market isn’t good at dealing with such things as safety and risk (both because of lack of information problems and people’s difficulties with assessing risk) and third-party effects (externalities).
The sort of harsh realities that an unregulated marketplace imposes on both sellers and buyers is one reason why some of us think that some regulation of the market is necessary…through laws and through legal recourse. That is, the marketplace is not the only place where the citizens of our society should be able to express their will and seek redress.
Nobody? Well, I’m not so sure given what ralph124c is saying.
Not to hijack the thread, but an interesting aside: the Rhode island nightclub disaster (The station) might be instructive:
my lawyer friends tell me that the litigation will most likely go on for 5-8 years. lawsuits will be filed against anybody having money, and having any connection to the unfortunate nightclub. You will see the manufacturer of the beer signs being sued. Will this result in “safer” beer signs? Not at all! The cost will just be passed on to the consumers (us), and unsafe nightclubs will continue to burn (as if litigation could prevent firetraps from ever NOT burning!). The effect of these
lawsuits on nightclub safety? Nil, nada, nothing…just big fees for the lawyers!
ralph124c: Well, that is a nice rant but it seems long on prediction and rather devoid of actual facts. A few questions:
Is there any solid basis to the claim that the beer sign-makers will be sued?
You say that litigation can’t prevent firetraps from burning. But, has it ever occurred to you that it might prevent places from being such firetraps in the first place? That it might prevent the unauthorized use of pyrotechnics in a building that it is unsuited for?
Jshore: a supper club in Kentucky birned in 1977,with 125 deaths from the fire. Among the defendents (in subsequent lawsuits) was the General Electric Co. (the manufacturer of the wiring used in the club). They paid out approx. $10 million in claims, despite the fact that:
-the GE wiring was acknowledged to have met all applicable fire codes
-no evidence that the fire was in fact started by an electrical cause
This proves my case…lawyers sue the “deep pockets” rather than the parties actually responsible for the torts. Of course, for GE $10 mill is pocket change…but it is money taken fromthe rest of us!
Actually, you could argue that safety is DECREASED by liability claims, because companies that find themselvesin court may tend to exit those businesses, leaving lower quality vendors (who supply less safeproducts).
Apparently, I just invented it. What I should be talking about is defective vehicles. Defective meaning that they are unreasonably dangerous.
There is evidence that car manufacturers ignore safety problems with their vehicles in order to make money.
Well, here is a citation discussing the fire. It is true that the cause was never determined conclusively, although a federal jury did reach the opinion that the wiring was at fault:
Also, what is known was that there was evidence that aluminum wiring was a fire hazard prior to its installation in that club, and most interestingly…
I’m not going to claim that all these suits are meritorious…and whether this one in particular was, but there are two sides to the argument and you ain’t going to hear both sides if you only listen to one of them.