Posted On: March 23, 2007, 11:44 am CDT

Posted By: Average Joe

In answer to your questions, yes, part of the purpose of the suit is to punish the manufacturer (that's why they have what they call PUNITIVE damages - duh !) I would guess most liability payments are due to "mistakes" not 100% intentional acts. That bus driver that drove off the bridge recently certainly didn't do that on purpose, but the bus company is still liable for the "mistake." No, the standard of care for animals isn't the same as for people, but it certainly should require a company to not sell poisonous pet food ! Even aside from humanitarian reasons, what do you think it would do for the pet food business if no one could rely on the safety of the products ? If businesses want people to buy their products, they should want to be held accountable/responsible. As for your other comments, I feel sorry for you - we get what we give, and you are obviously a cold, callous individual. Some people don't care for kids either. Maybe someone should have told the parents of the ball players that died on the bus "All people die sooner or later" (using your analogy)