The reason for this broad definition is to assure that the bill covers all theories of product liability, such as negligence, implied warranty, and strict liability. It is not broadly defined in order to extend to cases beyond product liability, and certainly not to extend the bill to cases involving negligent entrustment, such as in cases involving the sale of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual or the sale of a gun to a known felon.
Discussing the definition of product liability in relation to a legislative bill.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
I agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.
I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.
In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your interpretation of the language in question.
Other voices in this conversation
