> Now, if your court system sucks, it may not make a great decision but that's neither here nor there.
But "good decision" is not just a technical judgement. The OP claimed the U.S. courts changed their doctrine about this kind of case, at least regarding chemistry sets, around the 70s or not long before. I don't know if this is right, but it comports with other claims I've read about strict liability taking over then -- that previously, liability was a balance where adults could assume responsibility for themselves, and it was possible to sell them dangerous items if it was clear enough what they were getting, without extreme fear of lawsuits; and afterwards, not.
Maybe this claim is wrong, I don't know, but it's certainly not "neither here nor there" in this argument.
It actually is, because I'm focused on the slipping into toddlerdom part. Toddlers don't care about liability, but we do. Some mildly overprotective liability doctrine (won't someone think of the children?!) isn't enough to form the slippery slope that is being implied here.
A lot of people here are saying they resent that they're being treated like toddlers. It's not a prospective slippery slope, it's one we've already slid down.
In considering whether it's overprotective, you need to account for the products and industries that never came to exist, and not just the ones that were destroyed, like https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/av... (first paragraph).
But "good decision" is not just a technical judgement. The OP claimed the U.S. courts changed their doctrine about this kind of case, at least regarding chemistry sets, around the 70s or not long before. I don't know if this is right, but it comports with other claims I've read about strict liability taking over then -- that previously, liability was a balance where adults could assume responsibility for themselves, and it was possible to sell them dangerous items if it was clear enough what they were getting, without extreme fear of lawsuits; and afterwards, not.
Maybe this claim is wrong, I don't know, but it's certainly not "neither here nor there" in this argument.