alt.politics.economics

Davinchi wrote:

>alexy wrote:
>> Davinchi wrote:
>>
>>> Just go to Wikipedia and look up
>>> limited liability company
>>> limited partnership
>>> copyright infringement liability limitation
>> Before I waste time on those, are they in any way related to Mattel
>> (presumably a C-corp, presumably facing product liability action, not
>> copyright infringement)
>>
>>> limits on non-economic damages
>> That article talked about lots of attempts in some states, and some of
>> those attempts being struck down. Are you saying that mattel comes
>> under the protection of one of these new laws? Might make for an
>> interesting test of the law, if there is any case.
>>
>Right now it looks like the main controversy is what levels
>are unsafe. Some seem to think that any level is unsafe,
>and evidence this position with the fact that totally lead
>free materials are available;
That's a silly argument, equivalent to saying that pigmented finishes
are unsafe, evidenced by the fact that there are totally pigment-free
clear finishes available.
> Other want to argue that
>there is a safe level of exposure.
A subtly different way of looking at it is that there is an exposure
level below which there is no reason to suspect that it causes any
measurable additional risk. ., in Canada, the Federal Government
recommends a maximum lead content in water of .01 mg/l (or .01 PPM if
I'm doing the math right). If .01 PPM can be in the drinking water,
then the marginal risk of harm from lead poisoning due to .01 PPM
content of paint would be pretty insignificant.

>The problem with the
>latter position is that like many poisons the cumulative
>exposure is what increases the risk of catastrophic
>ailments, you most likely cannot know if your exposure was
>the first exposure with minor consequences or the last
>exposure with devastating consequences.
I don't think the last straw should be blamed for breaking the camel's
back.

>>> Any time some talks about tort reform they are limiting
>>> liability or access to the courts in some manner.
>> Yes. But talking about it doesn't provide anyone with a shield.
>>
>Ok, true so let's start with something we can absolutely
>agree on, Statute of Limitations.
An interesting problem. How does it work when the consequence of an
event (such as lead poisoning) may be delayed by a long time? Does the
SOL start running at the event or at the discovery of the
consequences? If the former, this may need some legislative attention.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.