66.        In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries
resulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers
against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for
such injuries is unjustifiable.
      Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an
important and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and
safety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level
of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials,
and so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.
      However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling.
First, the standard is costly. It forces-manufacturers to incur undue expenses for
overbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are
then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the
standard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is
distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually
caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where
the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-
hand users receive safe products or adequate "instructions and warnings. Finally, where
the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the
intended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware
of, it seems the user. not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.
      In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation,
holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is
unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers.