The plaintiff was barred from recovery on this theory because Civ. The plaintiff’s theory was the benefit of making assault weapons “available to the general public –which were nonexistent–did not outweigh the risk they might inflict serious injury or death when discharged.” Id, 470.
The test for recovery “involves a balancing of the likelihood of harm to be expected from a machine with a given design and the gravity of harm if it happens against the burden of the precaution which would be effective to avoid the harm.” Merrill v. Survivors of a shooting rampage sued a gun manufacture claiming the negligent product design. The B2 Super Battle Droid were larger, tougher, and more expensive droids that did not require a command system to operate.Ĭan Baktoid Combat Autom Be Sued under Common Law Negligence for Product Defect? The Battle Droids were the foot soldiers of the Separatists and required command systems to operate. Can Baktoid Combat Autom, the manufacture of the droids, be sued under any legal theories for injuries and deaths caused by their droids? What can we learn from claims against gun manufacturers on whether these cases would be successful? Can litigation over drone strikes offer any legal relief? The Separatists used the B1 Battle Droid and B2 Super Battle Droid during the Clone Wars against civilians.
