surfsidebill

After reading more about the trial material, and finding out that Ryobi refused to license EVEN THOUGH the added cost is something I would have paid (a few hundred dollars), I have the feeling that my first reaction (that this is another outrageous lawyer case) would yield to a second rethinking and end up finding Ryobi guilty, and wanting to award some level of damages.

I know the argument is that lawyers are overrunning us, yada yada yada. But now this is sounding more like seat belts and helmets on motor cyclists. The question is, if there's a reasonable technology available which could make an unsafe and dangerous tool into something tame and a company declines to use it, EVEN THOUGH the added cost would have been reasonable, do they have any responsibility?

I think the answer is yes, and i think if I had been on the jury I would have voted for it. This must have been a very convincing case.