Interesting proposition -- is there precendent?
I'm honestly not sure. There's the military contract setting, which isn't exactly on point as you've stated.
As far as "compliance with the law = compliance with standard of care," to my knowledge the only precedent is that the two aren't necessarily related. Meaning that complying with the law isn't necessarily complying with the standard of care, and complying with the standard of care isn't necessarily complying with the law.
For instance, say the speed limit is 55. Let's say you're going 65. Even though you're breaking the law, you're not necessarily being negligent.
Also, say the speed limit is 55, and you're doing 55. You're not necessarily being "unnegligent" - what if it's snowing?
For things that aren't heavily regulated, that's fine. The speed limit example makes sense.
But, things like aircraft development are very heavily regulated - I mean, my understanding of the certification process is that
everything is examined, spelled out, and has to be complied with before you've got a market-ready product. In that kind of setting, I say that we should provide at
least some kind of immunity, if not more.
Hmmm.. this is a bit sticky.
The costs incurred by the government developing all the specifications are substantial.
I like the result, but think the implementation differences are too great.
I know very little about how the gov't goes about developing designs (or adopting them), and nearly as little about how the FAA goes about certifying things, but are they really that different in effect? What I mean is: aren't they both doing the same thing, but in the former the gov't is doing it to meet its own standards, whereas in the latter private industry is doing it in the hope of meeting the gov't standards?
For instance, when the M1 was developed, I'm guessing that it was gone over with a fine-toothed comb - everything from how quickly the steel in the barrel would wear, to how wide the treads were and what angle slope they'd provide traction on.
With the FAA, doesn't it go over a new aircraft design with a fine-toothed comb, as well? Everything from insulation on the wiring to whether the toilet waste system will affect weight/balance?
Anyway, what I'm thinking is that if a private mfgr.'s design is sufficient to meet the FAA's criteria (which I assume are pretty stringent, right?), can't we safely say that, if the approved design is complied with, the mfgr. has satisfied its duty of care and should be immunized from liability?
Now, the problem with that is that it still leaves the door open for a determination of whether the mfgr. complied with the approved designs (e.g., arguing over whether the specified grade of rubber was actually used in the tires) - but the costs of that fight are
far less than the costs of a full-blown lawsuit, and the question is pretty easily determined.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
