There are general concepts that apply to most if not all product cases. Here are some suggestionsthat can be revised to fit a particular case. The first section is based on the ideas of well known products liability lawyer Harry Philo. These ideas of Mr. Philo are so universal they can be applied to any case including medical malpractice. When you takea basic idea like this it can be used in so many different ways. See David Ball’s publications for similar concepts.
Note that there is an underlying "reptile" motivator in all of these – survival. Self protection is a very strong motivator and whenyour case is presented as one thatinvolves security and protection of the public (including the juror’s) you invoke the motivation.
- Any risk of serious injury or death is unacceptable if reasonable prevention methods would eliminate or minimize the danger.
- People protection requires eliminating the hazard to safety. If that’s not possible guarding people from the danger. If that’s not possible, warning people about the danger.
- Risk – benefit analysis: (1) How serious is the potential harm (2) What is the likelihood of harm (3) What is the cost of elimination, protection or warning (4) how long will it take (5) how effective would it be and (6) are means available to do so
- The corporation had all the knowledge about the product defect
- The corporation was in the best position to share the knowledge with doctors and hospitals
The issue is:
(1) What did the corporation know and when did they know it.
(2) What did the corporation reveal and what did they conceal
(3) What did the corporation do to protect patients and their doctors and hospitals
(4) Did they do everything they could to prevent this from happening and to protect
- This machine had a bug, a flaw it in
- It was like a computer with a virus
- This was preventable, avoidable and inexcusable
- This corporation cut corners
- THEY SWEPT THE PROBLEM UNDER THE RUG
- COMPANY WAS AFRAID TO LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG THAT IT’S TEST WAS DEFECTIVE
- THEY "PARKED" THE INFORMATION IN THEIR FILES
- THIS COMPANY KNEW WHAT THE PUBLICDIDN’T KNOW
- CASE OF SHADING THE TRUTH, HIDING THE BALL & OUTRIGHT LIES
- THIS IS NOTHING BUT A SMOKE SCREEN FOR THEIR OWN ACTS
- THEY COVERED UP
- THEY PLAYED Russian ROULETTE WITH THE SAFETY OF CONSUMERS