It's not about the money as much as what the money stands for. Money cannot bring back a dead baby. But consider that you're told you can only go to a special court, with closed proceedings, that usually takes half a decade, which does not compensate every claim, there is no jury, you have more restrictions on what you can enter into evidence over normal court, your own attorney tells you that its kind of a very limited process and very different than normal court, and you end up getting a max of $250,000 for the dead of your child after years of litigation.
$250,000 cap, let that sink in, that's such a low amount that's basically the lawmakers and gov't spitting in your face saying that profit of vaccine manufacturers is more important than your dead baby. The low cap money relative to death in other types of litigation is intuitively symbolic of how we both put profit and lack of safety first over truly caring for people, and that enrages people. You don't have to take my word for it though; you see this effect in cases outside of the vaccine issue - once again, look at the Ford Pinto design defect, with its exploding fuel tank. What is funny is that people became enraged when Ford estimated they could make a profit if they paid out several hundred thousand dollars per death without fixing the defect, and that was a situation with design defect liability being present (but after Ford lost the case, I think the industry realized it had to pay attention to known design defects, even if not satistically significant).
-----
Your design defect analysis is a bit off. Here's a page that explains it better. https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liabi...esign.html
Basically, if you can prove that something is economically feasible and can be made safer, then your claim stands. It's not an easy claim. But it does make us safer than not having that at all. And it allows for large damages in most states when the conduct by the manufacturer is egregious. Poor claims are adjudicated and often dismissed at an early stage of court, and remember the costs are born by the litigant, sometimes including the cost for the opposing lawyer. It's not perfect, but it's worked in every other field since the dawn of this country. A person getting their day in court is crucial to the closure process. You know that is partly why courts came about - so that people would use a public process to resolve their grievances and receive closure instead of taking matters into their own hands. On all these metrics, the vaccine court fails and people do not feel fairly treated or fairly compensated and thus continue to hold on their grief and get organized.
The problem is that without design defect liability, we can deem vaccines safe enough, or manufacturers can, and yet allow for known causes of death or injury as long as they are not statistically significant and have no incentive to reduce edge cases of injury, even if financially viable.
If you really think there is a health crisis because of vaccine hesitancy, don't you think making vaccine manufacturers liable is a better solution than mandatory vaccination laws and/or pressuring social media sites to censor parents who lost children due to vaccines? What's your proposed solution?
$250,000 cap, let that sink in, that's such a low amount that's basically the lawmakers and gov't spitting in your face saying that profit of vaccine manufacturers is more important than your dead baby. The low cap money relative to death in other types of litigation is intuitively symbolic of how we both put profit and lack of safety first over truly caring for people, and that enrages people. You don't have to take my word for it though; you see this effect in cases outside of the vaccine issue - once again, look at the Ford Pinto design defect, with its exploding fuel tank. What is funny is that people became enraged when Ford estimated they could make a profit if they paid out several hundred thousand dollars per death without fixing the defect, and that was a situation with design defect liability being present (but after Ford lost the case, I think the industry realized it had to pay attention to known design defects, even if not satistically significant).
-----
Your design defect analysis is a bit off. Here's a page that explains it better. https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liabi...esign.html
Quote:A company's liability for a design defect occurs when there was a foreseeable risk posed by the product when the product was manufactured as intended and used for its intended purposes.
In many states, plaintiffs also have to show that the risk could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, which was:
- Feasible, in other words, the manufacturer had the ability to produce it;
- Economically feasible, in other words, it would not cost too much to make the product with the modification; and
- Not in opposition to the product's intended purpose, in other words, the product would still perform the function for which it was created.
Basically, if you can prove that something is economically feasible and can be made safer, then your claim stands. It's not an easy claim. But it does make us safer than not having that at all. And it allows for large damages in most states when the conduct by the manufacturer is egregious. Poor claims are adjudicated and often dismissed at an early stage of court, and remember the costs are born by the litigant, sometimes including the cost for the opposing lawyer. It's not perfect, but it's worked in every other field since the dawn of this country. A person getting their day in court is crucial to the closure process. You know that is partly why courts came about - so that people would use a public process to resolve their grievances and receive closure instead of taking matters into their own hands. On all these metrics, the vaccine court fails and people do not feel fairly treated or fairly compensated and thus continue to hold on their grief and get organized.
The problem is that without design defect liability, we can deem vaccines safe enough, or manufacturers can, and yet allow for known causes of death or injury as long as they are not statistically significant and have no incentive to reduce edge cases of injury, even if financially viable.
If you really think there is a health crisis because of vaccine hesitancy, don't you think making vaccine manufacturers liable is a better solution than mandatory vaccination laws and/or pressuring social media sites to censor parents who lost children due to vaccines? What's your proposed solution?