Bedlamized brains
A classic George Ostrom column, from June, 1989...
I was so disgusted this past week with our elected Administrative and Legislative branches not doing their jobs, I went in search for some electorate worse off than the citizens of Montana. It was a trying task, but I do believe I found one. The residents of the District of Columbia have an elected council which has decided that shooting injuries and death are caused by people who manufacture and sell guns. The group has been working feverishly to draw up legislation allowing the relatives of all gun victims to collect from those who have the gun and the ones who sold it.
I can understand the Washington D.C. council’s concern about shootings in their town, seeing it has also become the drug and murder “capital” of the United States of America. Fortunately, new laws for the District of Columbia must be approved by the U.S. Congress, so all of us will have a say of some sort, should this weird idea get that far. I am encouraged by a recent anecdote from our new U.S. Senator, Conrad Burns. He related at the Montana Press Convention what a policeman said to him, “Don’t take the guns away from them (the crooks) now, they’re killing the right ones.”
As calloused as that officer’s statement might seem, there is a good deal of wisdom there. Figures vary, but the last thing I remember reading about Washington, D.C. crime stated that more than 85 percent of killings were tied to illegal drug dealings and related criminal activity. The number one cause of crime in metropolitan areas is drugs. If you also count booze as a drug, then the same is true here in the Flathead.
Meanwhile, back in the D.C. council chambers, suppose that group got the laws changed to make gun manufacturers and dealers liable for injuries and deaths caused by their product. Let’s say, “It is a brilliant idea whose time has come.” If we accept that concept then it logically follows that the new law must apply to any other product capable of causing death and injury as well. That is legally fundamental. “Oh my! What joy for the over populated ranks of attorneys.”
Remember that gal who croaked her abusive boyfriend by climbing up off the davenport and dropping a bowling ball on his slumbering head? His heirs could go after the Brunswick Company. And how about that other woman who burned up her husband in bed? Of course there could be a little trouble there. Should his relatives sue the match company or the sheet and mattress manufacturers? Probably both.
The possibilities here are brain bedlamizing. The victim is drunker than a skunk, sleeping on the railroad tracks when a big freight comes through. Who do you sue? The maker of the rails, or the cars? Of course, even a mediocre defense attorney could prove the first set of wheels, on the engine, did the job, so the different manufacturer of the 100 cars that later ran over the victim was innocent of any wrongdoing. The attorney defending the rail manufacturers could say the victim would have been killed if run over by a train anyplace ... rails or no rails, so his client is innocent of contributory negligence. They could insult a jury’s intelligence for three days on that one point alone.
All motor vehicle manufacturers would be in deep doo-doo. I figure General Motors and Ford would be down the tube in six months. Lee Iacocca could probably swing a government loan and keep American Motors in business for an extra week or two. The intricacies of international lawsuits would allow the foreign vehicle makers to hang on for awhile longer.
There could be no more manufactured tools, electrical cords, fry pans, knives, rolling pins, sharp objects, neck ties, water pipes, boards, nothing. What if a guy choked on a piece of steak?
Do you sue the supermarket?
The rancher?
The bull or his dentist?
The only thing I really like about this expanded concept of manufacturer liability is that all the accidental deaths and murders would eventually have to be caused by rocks and tree branches, maybe and occasional garotting with a length of some stout root, push over a cliff or a poison mushroom in a stew. Probably be a lot more disgruntled wives urging their husbands to take bear pictures in Glacier Park.
Perhaps some “back to basics” never hurt anybody. Maybe that’s what America really needs and the D.C. council is just a jump or two ahead of the rest of us.
If you think this is a silly column, please remember ... it’s getting tougher and tougher to write serious stuff about politicians.