Product Liability Laws Are Reducing Safety

Product liability laws were enacted to make manufacturers more responsible (“Product Liability Bills Reintroduced,” Sept. 22). Unfortunately, they are having the reverse effect in some segments of our industry. One case in point is the U.S. light-aircraft industry.

Liability insurance for a new $40,000 airplane is $20,000. These high costs discourage individuals and companies from buying new aircraft. This, in turn, means that the aircraft being used are getting older and less reliable.

New technology for small aircraft is being stifled by liability insurance costs. For example, a company that designed an improved ignition system for small aircraft that would reduce fuel consumption and pollution decided not to market its product because of the liability burden it would have to assume.

Burt Rutan, the designer of the Voyager, the aircraft that flew around the world without refueling, used to market plans for innovative small aircraft. He stopped designing small aircraft because of the expense he incurred defending himself against a sue-everyone-in-sight lawsuit.

Product liability laws are needed because there are unscrupulous manufacturers. However, current product liability laws do not always serve the public’s best interest because they deter the manufacture of safer products instead of encouraging it.

We need laws stipulating that a manufacturer can be sued only if it markets a product that does not meet federal or state safety standards, or, when no standards exist, if it markets a product that it knows has unsafe features or characteristics and fails to notify consumers about the defect.

RODNEY F. SINCLAIR

San Pedro