Quote:
Originally Posted by Artie
I offer an observation intended to clarify confusion about "guilt" and "innocence" with regard to the issue of settlements of civil litigation, e.g., J&J's $860 million settlement in 2001 re allegations that consumers were deceived into believing that 1-day Acuvues could only be worn once even though they were virtually identical to Acuvue 2 (week) lenses:
When a defendant settles a lawsuit, the court validates the settlement without rendering any legal opinion about culpability or the merits of the allegations. Defendents settle for various reasons, including expediency, avoidance of further legal expenses, and/or a desire to avoid establishing a definite legal precedent that could be cited in other, similar litigation.
|
Thanks for explaining this case, Artie. Let me see if I understand you.
Let's say I sold you a car, and as soon as you got it home, the engine fell out on the driveway. You threaten to take me to court. I insist that the car was fine when you drove it from the lot, and you disagree.
So to avoid a messy, drawn-out and expensive court case and to make sure the outcome of this case won't affect future cases, I agree to pay for a new engine for your car. I'm not admitting guilt, but just helping to fix the problem and avoid the negative press that would accompany the publicity. I give you a check, we shake hands and then we never speak of this again. Does that sound right?