Hardening the consumer case

Richard C. Wilson
Saturday 27 May 1995 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

WHILE Paul Rodgers is right to criticise the extraordinary product liability cases to come before the American courts and the damages awarded in them, his article largely ignores the great problems faced by consumers in the UK when bringing cases where damage has been caused by defective products ("Corporate punishment", Business, 21 May). One need only look at the cases of the Thalidomide families to see how our negligence-based system of the 1960s failed plaintiffs. Yet new provisions, such as the Consumer Protection Act 1987, still do not go far enough.

Even stricter provisions are required to force manufacturers to recognise their duty to compensate those injured by their products rather than relying on the reluctance of the consumer to enter litigation.

I would not advocate a system of punitive damages as this would rather miss the point of the tort system: to provide redress to those who have suffered loss, not to punish the guilty manufacturer. Conversely, it would not be fair to expect the victims of products to bear losses in the hope of future advances that will in turn line the pockets of manufacturers.

Richard C Wilson

Sheffield

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in