[b-diddy]

If they're selling a product with a defect that is known, common, or regularily occurring they're negligent in continuing to sell it.

"Negligence is a legal concept usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). However, the concept is also sometimes used in criminal law as well. "Negligence" is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm. Proving a case for neligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proved in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases."


Would a reasonable person sell a product that was known to malfunction? Of course not.

They would be found liable in court and I work in the industry - I'm not looking for legal advice on a fish forum; just wanted some input if this was a common problem or not.

Any help would be appreciated.