
How do you distinguish between negligent and accidental behavior? I'm not sure us mere mortals can ever do it.
On April 10th the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control warned contact lens users about an outbreak of a rare but serious eye infection. In an article in the Herald Tribune, as of April 9, 109 cases had been reported nationwide, according to the CDC.
Officials interviewed 30 patients. Of them, 28 cases involved contact lens wearers, and 26 used Bausch & Lomb products.
Bausch & Lomb voluntarily recalled their ReNu with MoistureLoc product in mid-April, and the Food and Drug Administration issued a statement supporting the recall. All that without any evidence that Bausch & Lomb's product is responsible for the infections.
Last Friday a Sarasota woman followed similar actions in Miami and New York, and filed suit against the company.
The lawsuit alleges that Bausch & Lomb was negligent in the production and distribution of the lens solution, that the product did not meet the company's usual standards and misrepresented the safety of the product.
What concerns me is that there is now apparantly a class-action lawsuit in the works. To me this smacks of opportunistic lawyering, not consumer safety. The article quotes the lawsuit, saying that B & L was "negligent" and the product "did not meet the company's usual standards" and therefore they "misrepresented" the safety of the product.
If there was a mistake, of course they did not meet their usual standards, and by default, "misrepresented" the safety of the product. But as I initially asked, how do we differentiate between negligent and accidental. It's murky. And unfortunately, murky is where lawyers of questionable repute lurk.
If Bausch & Lomb did put out a faulty product, and people got seriously hurt by it, then legal recourse is certainly justified. That's why B & L has insurance. But to slap a class-action on them at this point is most likely premature, and will make it even harder for consumers to get reliable, safe and affordable products. If a company has to worry about massive litigation even for an honest but regrettable mistake, that chill wind will be felt throughout industry, and eventually by families everywhere.
How'd you like to be held criminally responsible for an auto accident? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be calling my insurance agent than a defense attorney.
Can anyone say "Tort reform"?






Thanks John. Is it possible the excessive jargon is purposeful to keep the weebles weak? Just wondering.... what do you think?
Posted by: ellenweber | April 24, 2006 4:31 AM | Permalink to Comment