Do we know the extent of the girl's injuries? Is there potential long term damage that might have not yet been discovered? Have any of us spoken with her, the family, or her doctors? Is it fair to blindly assume what the actual cost analysis in that situation is at this point?
As for "millions of dollars," it's obviously not about the actual dollar value or cost associated with the injury, but rather, settlements and judgments are often the only things that will serve as a deterrent for big corporations. Money talks. If a business, like a theme park, was only liable to a guest for the dollar amount of that guest's paid admission, then they can pretty much be as reckless as they want to be. If Coke was only liable to a consumer for the value of the can of Coke that they purchased, then there's no need for quality control measures, and if a little bit of rat poison got into a few batches of Coke, then no big deal. If, however, Coke's liability exposure was more than the $0.50 paid for the can, then they have some actual incentive to keep the consumer free of rat poison. So, is the poisoned consumer "wrong" for seeking damages in an amount higher than $0.50, or, higher than the medical costs associated with ingesting the poison? What would be the dollar value attributed to keeping the rest of us - consumers - free of poison?
As a consumer, I'm glad that there are mechanisms in place that serve as actual incentives for companies that prioritize profits. The next time I purchase a Coke at Disney, I don't (or shouldn't) have to worry about it containing rat poison. ...Although I heard that they have a "mouse problem" at the World.
