Jon Kyl: “I went to law school and studied the concepts of gross negligence and reckless conduct. There are thousands, in fact…”

“I went to law school and studied the concepts of gross negligence and reckless conduct. There are thousands, in fact probably millions, of pages of case law trying to define those legal terms. The reality is no judge or lawyer can tell you today what they mean. They say it all depends. This amendment does not clear that up. In fact, it only adds to the confusion, because it statutorily creates a standard of care when there is no underlying cause of action, no basis for liability against the defendant. There will still be lawsuits to defend and lawyers to pay even if you win. I guess that may be the whole point of the proponents--create a requirement for manufacturers to defend themselves in court even though there is no legitimate cause of action against them. They pay more insurance, more lawyers, so even if they win, they lose. This bill is all about ensuring there is no cause of action against a manufacturer which makes a legal, nondefective product. It makes no sense to say unless he is grossly negligent. He is already liable if he is grossly negligent. Say the gun blows up and kills somebody; that standard applies already if there is a legal cause of action against him--in other words, a legal basis for holding him liable. It adds nothing but confusion when there is no underlying cause of action. Here is an example: You get yourself rear-ended by the guy behind you, and I am not that guy. You have no right to sue me.…”