File under: WTF?
Vancouver (Canadian Press) - ... During arguments in B.C. Supreme Court, Judge Robert Sewell asked Taser's lawyer David Neave why the company's presence at the hearings in 2008 wasn't enough. ... Neave responded by saying the company still had no reason to believe Braidwood would reach the conclusions he did, leaving Taser with no opportunity to properly respond. ... [LINK]
You may have to read that a couple more times to get it.
He's saying they didn't anticipate Braidwood's conclusions about taser safety claims... ...and so they failed to prepare an adequate defense.
Word of the day: "Disingenuous"
I'm no lawyer, but that "Lack-of-Defense" defense is not something that is typically accepted.
And it'd be shocking if Neave doesn't know that...
So I'm suspicious that they're laying the ground work for a sobbing "We had NO idea tasers can sometimes kill" strategic defense to the larger issue of liability.
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.