How can I argue against "a company cannot fully shield themselves from liability

[doublebiggulp]

which is unfair."? I'm writing a paper saying that I agree that companies should be liable for damages when they are not negligent in manufacturing or marketing a product but my counter-arguement I'm having problems rebutting.

How can I argue against a strict liability claim that a company cannot fully shield themselves from liability which is unfair? Any ideas would be great? Thanks.

 

[badspeller]

all co. must be liable for all damages of the product manufactured by them

 

[nathan]

I don't fully understand the question. The statement cannot be refuted only looked over as it is not elaborated at all. "liability which is UNFAIR" this has to be supported, or at the very least the statement maker's definition of what constitutes unfair liability must be made clear.

With what you have given the best idea I could give would go something like this: "What is unfair liability? Is it unfair to think that a company should refrain from dumping waste into our water sources? Is it unfair to presume that companies should make sure that their toys not be coated with paint that's toxic to children? If I spill a drink I wipe it up, if a company spills oil all along our shores, I hold them to the same standard.