For strict liability, if there is a small risk involving death, it does not matter if your case is only of a small possibility because we are talking about death here. However, as we all know, none of the drugs can be 100% safe. The fact that nobody is suing the drug company is because the utility of the drug is much higher than the risk and there is no safer alternative. Again, your focus may have to be the warning part to see if the drug is so unsafe that if you were warned you might decline of its use.
回复:你觉得这种官司比较难赢,是吗?
For strict liability, if there is a small risk involving death, it does not matter if your case is only of a small possibility because we are talking about death here. However, as we all know, none of the drugs can be 100% safe. The fact that nobody is suing the drug company is because the utility of the drug is much higher than the risk and there is no safer alternative. Again, your focus may have to be the warning part to see if the drug is so unsafe that if you were warned you might decline of its use.
所有跟帖:
• 非常谢谢你 -十二人马- ♀ (615 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 14:35:57
• the nurse should monitor baby's heart rate all the -learncooking- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:00:08
• time. the nurse was wrong by letting it delayed -learncooking- ♀ (193 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:03:20
• 谢谢你的理解。 -十二人马- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/23/2006 postreply 15:05:04