Product Liability and Government

Sometimes I have strange “train of thought” theories. In my Japanese Law class we need to write short reflection papers about issues, concepts, etc. I had one due yesterday and had one of these “train of thought” theories: one that I’m going to share.

This has to deal with tort law, specifically product liability. Basically product liability deals with injuries due to products. As evidenced throughout the universe of product warnings, like the one on my toaster that says do not use in the shower or bath, in the United States there are a lot of law suits based on injury, or damages, due to a product. There is a lot less in Japan, and one of these reasons may be because of the Safety Goods System which is a self certification regime that certifies products, and will settle with people who claim damages out of court in less time, but for less money. Overall though in Japan there are less product liability lawsuits than the United States (who I dub the Pope of Product Liability Lawsuits.

So here is my thought. If there is a self-certification regime who is at fault when there are damages due to the product the manufacturer or the certification regime. Usually it is the manufacturer, they have more money. It should be the regime though, the manufacturer pays the regime to certify their product and set the standards. Then again the regime is supported by the corporations which really makes the standards. What about a certification regime that is supported by the consumers (the people), if they certify a product and it then ends up harming people then who is at fault. In short using the same logic it would be the consumers fault. There are two such regimes in the United States. The first are groups like consumer reports and the like, which is only partially supported by the consumers. The second, and important for this debate, is the government. The government speaks for the people (in a democratic government) and because we have set up safety standards for certain goods there is precedent for the government to set standards for any good. This regime obviously already exists, therefore the consumers are therefore responsible for damages due to product liability. If there are no standards then it is the decision of the people to not have standards.

Do I believe this, no, but it makes sense to me. When we are electing a government, deciding on government issues I think that we are looking into more than just a handful of issues. Some people are single issue voters (mostly stupid people) and get upset when there is another issue that bites them in the ass. Government is much deeper than issues like abortion, affirmative action, etc; not that these issues are not important because they are. The point is that there is more to government than what most people think. The question to “do governments matter” is a different issue.