JIB in the News

[alfred russel]

AR, I am curious, are you philosophically ok with a retailer being fully liable for a defective product, even if the product contained a hidden defect that the retailer had no knowledge of, and in no way the retailer did anything wrong other than selling the product?

Yes.

How do you square that with your generalized opposition to tangentially involved, deep pockets being fully liable? How is a retailer that sells a defective product without any knowledge of the defect (or any way to become knowledgeable about the defect for that matter) or any control of the defect any more "responsible" than Jib?

Wait, what kind of argument style is this? Ask me an opinion on a separate issue versus the one being discussed, and then challenge me for being inconsistent based on that reply?

There are a lot of factors at play, and in the interests of not writing a novel, a consumer needs to be able to recover from a defective product. If the legal system does not hold the supply chain (through the retailer) responsible for defective products, there are obvious consumer problems that can develop. Among them, it is possible to vertically integrate a supply chain, but if liability is to be focused on just the responsible party, a rational response is to break each step into a separate corporation and leave them thinly capitalized. 

We have been discussing a very different situation. In the JiB case, a guy got a beatdown that happened to be in a JiB parking lot. The judgment creates an economic incentive for JiB to either close down the location (either entirely or just during certain hours) or create a security environment that pushes the dangerous elements off of its property. Neither result does anything to improve the community (and harms it in the former case). But if I buy a defective swingset, being able to recover only prevents the company from selling defective swingsets.

[dps]

Does the government not do anything?

Here we've go a scheme that, in certain circumstances, pays compensation to victims of violent crime.

Generally, not anything specifically to help crime victims.  If you're disabled, you'd still be eligible for the same assistance any other disabled person would get (SSI, etc.).

[The Minsky Moment]

We don't really know all the facts in the JiB case, and what the jury heard. 
It does on the surface seem not to portray the American tort system in the best light.
But this thread also raised some broader issues about tort doctrine and the "justice" of different kinds of regimes.  And the merits or lack thereof of this one particular case don't necessarily have a lot to bear on those questions.