Melvin Watt: “Mr. Chairman, the bill, because it has not been properly considered through the committee process, leaves a lot to be…”

“Mr. Chairman, the bill, because it has not been properly considered through the committee process, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of drafting. This amendment is an effort to correct a real problem with the bill, because the bill purports to give an exception for suits where there are physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product when the product is used as intended. The problem is that there is no definition of 'when the product is used as intended,' so you are left with this situation. I am sure my colleagues are going to tell you all kinds of things where lawsuits could go forward under this rubric, but I think a number of lawsuits are going to be foreclosed by this language, and I would like to just give one or two examples. First of all, I am holding in my hand 13 recall notices from manufacturers of weapons. These recall notices recall a product, a gun, a kind of gun, in a lot of cases because when it is accidentally dropped, the gun will discharge. Well, the question then becomes, if a gun is accidentally dropped, is it being used as intended?”