CROSS EXAM REGARDING BALANCING COST vs BENEFIT

COST  vs RISK ANALYSIS

1.         Analyzing What is Reasonable

(1)        SHOULD CONSIDER:

(a)        LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY HAPPENING

(b)        SERIOUSNESS OF HARM IF IT DOES HAPPEN

2.         Cost vs Benefit Analysis

(1)        SHOULD CONSIDER:

(a)        COST OF INFORMING

(b)        DIFFICULTY AND TIME TO WARN

(c)        THE BENEFIT FROM GIVING THE WARNING

(d)        WHETHER METHOD OF INFORMING INVOLVES
ACCEPTED PROCEDURE IN INDUSTRY

(e)        WHAT HARM CAUSED BY GIVING WARNING

a.         THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE HARM

b.         THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE HARM COMPARED TO
THE BENEFIT

3.         Analysis & Conclusion

(1)        THE GREATER THE POTENTIAL HARM THE
GREATER THE DUTY TO ACT

(a)        CYANIDE POISON PILLS IN SIX OUT OF
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BOTTLES

(2)        “OUNCE OF PREVENTION WORTH A POUND
OF CURE”

(3)        “BETTER TO BE SAFE THEN SORRY”

About Paul Luvera

Plaintiff trial lawyer for 50 years. Past President of the Inner Circle of Advocates & Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. Member American Board of Trial Advocates, American College of Trial Lawyers, International Academy, International Society of Barristers, member of the National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame & speaker at Spence Trial College
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.