Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44836)	7/11/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Judges decide questions of law, juries decide questions of fact, unless the parties waive their right to a jury. Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is ordinarily a question of fact, unless it's so obvious it is, or isn't dangerous that no reasonable person could find otherwise. In which case, the trial judge should have either ruled that way before trial, or not put the matter to the jury. If the trial judge let the jury decide the question, then the issue on appeal will be whether the trial judge erred in letting the jury decide, because no reasonable jury could have found that the product was defective. If it could have gone either way, then the fact that you would have ruled differently isn't grounds for reversal.