Massive lawsuits against the cigaterre “industry” and the firearms “industry” have been brought by states and cities, who hold that the companies who manufacture these items should collectively be held liable for the harm done in society with them. But how can these parties, who make up just one link in a chain leading to costly disease and/or death, be the sole culprit? What about the farmers who grow the tobacco? What about the stores who sell the cgarettes (or guns)? What about tobacco middlemen, or niche sellers of pipe tobacco and cigars, or importers? More importantly, what about the government(s) who explicitly permit the manufacture and sale of these products? And last but not least, what about the actual people in whose hands these instruments are used to inflict what they inflict? Furthermore, how can companies who simply buy tobacco and turn it into cigarettes be responsible for the addictive and carcinogenic properties of the substance? How can a given gun manufacturer be responsible for the fact that guns can be used to kill when that has always been the basic property of a gun?
Suppose the owners of a cigarette company which has 20% of the market decide to shut it down because they didn’t want to resonsible for people smoking anymore. Would smoking and eventually lung cancer go down by 20%? No, new brands, or more likely expansions of exising ones, would come along to fill in the gap created in the market. The “invisible hand” did it. The government might step in and prohibit any new brands as well as any expansion of capicity among the others. Would it? My point is that the consumers and the government are both integeral parts of the “industry” that is supposedly being sued. Society should sue itself.
With guns, cities like Chicago with ordinances resricting or banning handguns–someone explain how this passes constitutional muster–are suing the manufacturers because people are still bringing them in. The crooks typically get their guns from dealers in nearby suburbs and drive 'em back into the city. Since the gunmakers “know” their products are being retailed in this manner, they’re the one to blame for crime, right? Don’t the suburban governments, state governments, and federal government also “know” about this arrangement and its consequences? The makers are being charged with “negligent marketing”, which is an absurd concept in the first place, but you never see many ads for guns anyway, in inner cities or anywhere else. I don’t know to what degree the border gun shops are being charged, but you see film of real thuglike characters snapping up hardware from an all-too friendly and co-operative gun store clerk. But there have to be guidelines on refusing sale for a seller to violate before he can be held negligent for treating customers equally. What if a gun store put up a sign saying, “whites only”? In the same courthouse they’d be sued for selling guns and not selling guns.
You can sue anyone you want. If the judge agrees you have standing, your suit can go to trial. If a jury believes that the preponderance of evidence shows that the defendant damaged you in a way contrary to the law, you will win a judgement. If you can find a way to enforce the judgement, you will get money.
Generally speaking, the cases against the firearms and tobacco industries are not simply because the companies are selling dangerous products. Rather, in the case of the tobacco companies, the plaintiffs allege that the company acted fraudulently, in concealing evidence for the harmfulness of tobacco. In all candor, from the evidence I’ve seen, this claim has good support.
I’m not sure what the basis is for suing the firearms companies. I think it has to do with some weird marketing sleaziness, but I really don’t recall the details, just the impression that there was some more specific reason than just “guns are dangerous.”
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
“Some weird marketing sleaziness” is right, at least here in California. The gun manufacturers are being sued on the grounds that they’ve deliberately marketed their weapons to people who intend to use them for illegal purposes - for example, by advertising the difficulty of lifting fingerprints from the gun; or by trying to sell excess quantities of guns in states that have lax gun control laws, or to gun-show dealers who can resell them in quantity without needing to register them, etc. And, that the manufacturers could make the guns safer (childproofing & the like) but have chosen not to do so.
In general, one sues the manufacturer of a ‘defective’ product because, had the manufaturer not manufactured it, it wouldn’t have been available to do whatever bad thing it is that makes the product ‘defective’.
Thus, for instance, a tobacco grower doesn’t make a defective product. Tobacco, by itself, does nothing harmful. You have to turn it into a cigarette (cigar, pipe tobacco, etc.) to have it become a defective product.
Does this mean that the rest of the ‘industry’ involved won’t be hurt by the litigation? Of course not. If tobacco companies cannot produce cigarettes without facing legal liability, and reduce or eliminate production, what effect do you think that has on the growers?
I understand these points. But, #1. Are the costs of smoking entirely the result of coverups by the cigarette companies? No, this is just a pretext to portray them as bad guys. If there had been full disclosure from them, it would have hurt their business but people would still smoke. Would the cig companies be off the hook? I doubt it.
#2. If it’s legal to sell something, it’s legal to market it. A gun maker may know that a certain percentage of its guns will be used in crimes, but how do they which guns not to sell? If their only choice is to not sell any, isn’t that the same as a ban, without the necessary legislative action (or constitutional amendment)? Why doesn’t the government ban fingerprint-proof guns, require safety locks, regulate interstate sales? Negligence involves deviating downward from accepted standards, thus causing a mishap. What standards are the gun sellers deviating from? They have standards to prevent the guns from blowing up in your face. The government is being negligent in not establishing marketing standards. If certain states have lax gun laws, then aren’t those states partly responsible? The courts are part of the government; the government can’t punish you for doing what the government allows.