Woman Sues Drug Dealer For Negligence

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Maybe the judge could claim that the refusal to give up the source indicates a knowledge of guilt by the defendant. Obviously the source's guilt is dealing the illegal drug in the first place, not willfully intending to hurt the user, but the judge is playing dumb for the purposes of putting at least one of them in jail.

The judge is not playing dumb. For example, if the user is 60% guilty, then the dealer can only be 40% guilty? Of course not. Each is responsible for his own actions.

Sure, the user is 60% or 100% responsible for her actions. That says nothing about the dealer's responsibilities. Dealer also is responsible - separately - for his own actions. A dealer who can cast blame on the guilty party (his provider), could have claimed he did not know the material was manufactured defectively. But the dealer has taken the position of 'prime contractor'. The 'prime contractor' takes responsibility for the actions of his subcontractors.

By not naming his provider, the dealer is a 'prime contractor' and therefore fully responsible for integrity (safety) of the product. This dealer sold dangerous product and is 100% guilty for selling a defective product.

That 100% guilt upon the dealer is completely independent of another irresponsible action by the user.

In a separate action, 6 ruffians kill a man. Each actively participated in the murder. Is each only 17% guilty of murder? Of course not. Each man is 100% responsible for his actions in a murder - regardless of how many others also participated. Some instead want to break blame up into pieces. Does not matter how many participated. Each guilty party is 100% responsible for what his own actions do - regardless of what others also do.