PeterDubois

Bill Van: excellent question. Theoretically, you could sue Ford, but under Massachusetts law you would have to prove the following (as Osorio did):

1. That your injuries would have been prevented by the laser assist.

2. That Ford knew or should have known that the Edge without laser assist was unreasonably dangerous considering (a) the likelihood of your type of injury, (b) the severity of such injuries, and (c) whether an alternative design (laser assist) to prevent or reduce such injuries was both technically and economically feasible. Ford would not have to make the product perfectly safe, only reasonably safe under foreseeable conditions of use, all things considered .

3. That your own negligence in driving was less responsible for causing the injury than the faulty design. (Actually, on this point Ford would have the burden of proving that your driving was more than 50 percent responsible).

I can think of a lot of reasons that a jury would or would not go for this, but unless there’s some pre-emptive federal regulation that I am unaware of, you could give it a try.

The important point, though, is that you would have to persuade a jury of your fellow citizens. Having read the transcript in the Osorio case, I don’t think the jury was swayed by undue emotion. Instead, I think that the jury just weighed safety more heavily than price, and Ryobi’s responsibility to make a safe product more heavily than Osorio’s responsibility to use it safely. Many FWW readers obviously would have struck a different balance. So might I have done. But that doesn’t mean that the jury was irrational or that the legal system failed to ask all the relevant questions.

rupps: Ryobi’s post-trial motions were not denied until June 8, so they still have a few more days to file a notice of appeal. But the potential grounds for appeal strike me as weak. An successful appeal needs to argue legal error, not just disagreement with the verdict. Appeal or no, keep in mind that this verdict is not a “precedent” in the sense of a decision that other courts are bound to follow. It is only an indication of how other juries are likely to view things. They will probably have to try a few more cases before they can be sure whether this jury is typical -- or whether the defense attorneys can raise their game.