Callous Clear product

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGAL REFORM ACT OF 1996
company determined that potential liability risks under the
present system of law made the product uneconomical.
Another company developed a phosphate fiber substitute for asbestos,
the subject, obviously, of a tremendous amount of litigation. Not only
was the product safe, it was biodegradable and environmentally sound.
Although the product could have generated an estimated$100 million a
year in revenues, the company concluded that plaintiffs' attorneys
would make the product a target for expensive legal claims, and it was
therefore too risky to market.
Another company developed a chemical process that would speed up the
natural bacterial decomposition of hazardous materials and might have
been used to clean up hundreds of leaking underground storage sites.
Despite its successful demonstration at several sites, the new
technology was abandoned because the risk from potential lawsuits was
too great.
In addition, even those companies thathave been willing to stay in a
particular business have been forced to increase the charges for the
products they market, sometimes astronomically, in order to cover their
cost of product liability litigation. Lederle Laboratories, which is
now the lone maker of the DPT vaccine, all other manufacturers having
abandoned the field, raised its priceper dose from $2.80 in 1986 to
$11.40 in 1987 to pay for the costof lawsuits. One other company does
continue to produce, solely out of a feeling of social responsibility.
This chart behind me indicates the litigation tax cost of a number of
products produced and marketed in the United States: almost $24 for an
8-foot aluminum ladder; $3,000 fora heart pacemaker; $170 for a
motorized wheelchair; 18 cents for a regulation baseball. There are
example after example of the addedcosts to American consumers to pay
for the lottery that is product liability litigation today.
What do we have in the litigation system itself? We have a system
that is truly a lottery, one in which the average small claimant with a
very minor injury is likely to recover much more than that person's
actual losses, while the average seriously injured individual recovers
much less, with a few lucky ones in a few States with high punitive
damage award histories receiving much more. But the bottom line, the
total cost, is that for every dollar which the system itself costs,
every dollar that goes into the product liability litigation system,
well under 50 cents goes to the victim. Mr. President, 50 cents or more
goes to the lawyers, and an additional amount intransaction costs for
related professions. There is no wonder thedefense of the present
system isso fierce.
So this bill is designed to do two things. It is designed, to a
certain degree, tomake more uniform and predictable the way in which
the product liability litigation or claim system will work; to make it
more just, actually to increase claimants' rights in some areas, like
the statute of limitations; to reduce thecost of litigation and the
overall transaction costs; to restore the competitiveness of American
industry; to provide additional incentives for research, to develop, to
offer for sale in the market widely the kinds of new and better medical
devices, mechanical products, sporting goods that we, as Americans,
have come to expect.
No one else in the worldhas a system like ours. No one else has a
system more expensive, noone else has a system that so discourages
research and development and marketing of new products.

--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>

Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://twitter.com/presidentus1