Consumer protections in product liability bill

April 06, 1996

Your March 22 editorial ''Trial lawyers' president'' was grossly unfair.

The writer asserts that the president's promise to veto the bill, as passed by the Senate, was purchased by some donations by trial lawyers.

Whatever donations he received from them would be minor compared to the lobbying money and campaign donations spent on Congress by the insurance industry and corporations they insure against liability for products or working conditions which might injure or poison people or their environment.

The president has promised to veto the bill unless it is changed, because consumers and employees should have something beyond mere actual damage loss as a deterrent to sloppy and unsafe products or unsafe working conditions.

That is the whole purpose of punitive damages.

The editorial writer seems so blinded by anti-Clinton bias that he forgot the consumer and the worker -- both are more important than industrialists or politicians or even editorial writers.

Ronald P. Bowers

Lutherville

Pub Date: 4/06/96

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.