Issue 558 Don't sue them, sue the Regulators March 30, 2015

I have discussed with you all before that the reason why we do not have things like more comfortable seat belts and other technology is out of fear of lawsuits.  But what if we provided an insulator from lawsuits for these inventors and entrepreneurs?  In this case, government regulators can act as that shield.  Let us discuss.

Regulators as shields:  The concept is that things like new seat belt varieties, consumer products and the like all have to be approved by regulators who test them to ensure they work the way they are intended.  However, sometimes these items malfunction, are not used as intended, or there is an unknown defect.  This causes the sellers/creators of that product to come under fire for a lawsuit.  But, the seller/creator did not intend for such a thing to happen to those individuals, and the regulators are supposed to test to see how many malfunctions could take place, and look for defects.  So why not make it so that only the regulators (the product testers at the governmental level) are subject to the lawsuits for damages first?

Reasoning:  In concept, the idea is that because the regulators failed to identify defects and malfunctions it is primarily their fault.  Thus, the lawsuit falls on them first.  So any lawsuit by anyone will have to meet the full weight and force of a government sponsored lawyer who has near unlimited resources.  In this lawsuit, the first thing to be determined will not be blame however, but if the item was being used properly.  If it was then the lawsuit continues, if not the lawsuit ends as the blame goes to the item/product's user.  Then, if the case continues, they look to see if there is a defect, and if there is, the case goes through and the product is recalled to fix the defect and to replace the item with a fixed version, or an alternative.   If there is no defect, then they look to see if the cause for harm was a malfunction, and the rate of failure of the item/product in question.  If the rate of failure is deemed more than what the regulators stipulated by a reasonable amount, then the regulators pay damages, if not, then the case is dismissed.  The only time that the case will be bumped to the creators/inventor(s) is if gross negligence was discovered on their part in the making of their product and that is investigated in the course of the trail, but the regulators would share the blame for not catching it and thus pay part of the reparations to the victim.

Conclusion:  This set up prevents creators, inventors and startups from losing money to lawsuits that can be potentially frivolous. It also ensures that people/companies who make and invent new products do not have to fear lawsuits as much which allows more freedom and accelerated technological development and allows for newer products to go on the market.  The regulators can not only protect us from a bad product, but also protect the sellers/investors of these products as well.