[fragmede]

I imagine that they'd ddmit that the car as designed is bad and fix or replace the bad cars. Leaving cars on the road that have a design flaw that randomly kills people, because it's cheaper to pay off dead people's families is reprehensible.

[aperson_hello]

There's a question about what a design flaw means though. What about a car that was built without a backup camera because it was older than when they were commonly included? Or built when they were commonly available, but not before they were mandated? Is that a design flaw?

What about something that's more accidental that causes fewer deaths than the lack of a backup camera, but also costs more to fix than retrofitting a backup camera?

[tiahura]

Legally, it’s up to the jury.

Each side has the right to bring in experts to testify about what were reasonable design choices, what was greed, and what was just a bone headed mistake.

If the jury concludes that the product wasn’t unreasonably dangerous or defective, defendant wins. If they find that is was, plaintiff wins.