They covered this up, but kept using it continue making money. Just like they, along with hundreds of other major corporations, chose to cover up the dangers of asbestos. Do you see a pattern here?
They push for tort reform, exaggerating and making up false claims/stories of lawsuit abuse, to get caps on damages and getting rid of, or greatly reducing the circumstances in which punitive damages can be awarded. This allows them to cut corners on safety without fear of significant punishment if they are caught. We have been duped by this argument and citizens across the country voted for tort reform. They also started to get on juries intent on making sure that the plaintiff would get nothing, no matter the facts.
In a case like the one talked about, it is usually tough to find a lawyer to take it because they usually have to pay for the epidemiological studies. Most firms can't or won't take these cases because you have to spend a lot of money just to find out if there is a case. The rule requiring these studies certainly benefits industry. Here I suspect,there was enough evidence to make the judge shift the cost to DuPont.
What makes people make decisions like this? How do they sleep at night? When they look at their own kids and grand kids, do they wonder about some other company doing this to them?
= new reply since forum marked as read
