But did the tractor owner win the lawsuit? Anybody can sue anybody. Winning is what matters. That anecdote doesn't tell me anything, and the whole article reads as FUD. I wonder if it is paid for by John Deere?
> Whether or not someone is eligible for workers’ compensation depends on their state and the industry they work in. There are no requirements at the federal level that mandate states to have workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, every state, except for Texas, requires most employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. However, the majority of state workers’ compensation laws specifically exclude or limit agricultural employers from the workers’ compensation requirement.
Take note of 42:23 where it goes to who is at fault and the liability for it (the case study starts at 21:21 - jumping to 42:23 you can get the "who is paying for it" in two minutes). The entire video is interesting (if you're interested in product liability for industrial (farm) equipment ... but I can understand someone not wanting to watch an hour long video about it). It boils down to "every piece of farm equipment is dangerous from the insurance perspective and a manufacture allowing unapproved modifications to the equipment is still at fault, even if the modification was made by another party."
Agreed! A fix would be nice. But owning a tractor could get you sued. Going outside could get you sued. Being a good neighbor could get you sued. There's no reason to think that modifying your tractor makes you more likely to get sued. Let alone the dealership.
The very act of existing as a corporation with a lot of money is what makes you a lawsuit magnet. Nothing you can do will prevent that. Trying to prevent people from making modifications to their tractors they bought from you is just as likely to get you sued as not trying to stand in their way.
There are corporations that are well-known to use lawsuits as a way of silencing people. They have lots of money to keep lawyers on the payroll and bankrupt their opponent.
