The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Well it looks like the company Bausch & Lomb did the right thing and removed the product ReNu from the market because it had the potential to cause a form of fungal outbreak leading to possible blindness. The company took the high road and suggested that by recalling its product:

Bausch & Lomb’s top priority is the safety of our customers, and we want them to have complete confidence in our products.

Kudos to Bausch & Lomb for its prompt action in removing this potentially unsafe product from the market quickly.

I wonder if the company would have taken such a bold step if certain tort reform initiatives were adopted. If the company had not faced financial exposure to potential product liability claims, would Bausch & Lomb have removed this product from the market? Does anybody disagree that our product liability laws as they currently exist give Bausch & Lomb or any other company positive financial incentives to make their products safe? Moreover, under our current system, don’t you agree that if a product turns out to be defective or unsafe, then a company has additional incentive to remove that faulty product from our markets? Isn’t the Bausch & Lomb case an example of how companies should react when their products present safety problems? I think so. I also think that the proper environment exists for companies like Bausch & Lomb to make the right decisions or face justice in the courtroom. This positive environment encourages safety and accountability and nothwithstanding the tort reform rhetoric, this environment should not change. Click here for more information about the defective ReNu product and Baush & Lomb’s decision.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest