MOMO'S BREAKOUT BOARD

[cfoofme]

Bottom feeding lawyers stifle important new products in US ?Posted by investor2014.

Covering all exclusions to defend against litigation is why a number of companies are deciding not to enter or to withdraw their products from the litigious U.S. market.

The analogue example is when PA regs or Missling fails to explicitly exclude some possibility, then someone will immediately think of some unlikely event and claim it is possible or even guaranteed to occur.

A Danish manufacturer withdrew a well proven and respected heart starter from the U.S. market because of the risk of litigation and high probability of loosing in court should someone use it in any number of unforeseeable stupid ways injuring themselves, others or simply failing to restart someone’s heart costing the company untold millions of dollars in settlements.

There was also the case of a woman who decided to dry her rain vet cat in the microwave oven. The cat, not unsurprisingly to most, died and she sued the microwave manufacturer and won because the instructions did not explicitly state not to dry one’s cat in it.