Eugene Volokh, in arguing that no one should be able to sue gun manufacturers who, for example, knowingly supply weapons to dealers with established histories of selling to ineligible buyers, makes an analogy to the alcohol industry. Surely, he says, no one would think of holding a booze maker responsible for the fact that much of its product is illegally sold to minors, who then proceed to wrap their cars around trees.
Why not? I thought that the legal rule was that a person is taken to have intended the reasonably foreseeable results of his actions. If Miller Brewing runs ads on TV that an expert on advertising would have predicted would boost demand for its products among those too young to buy them, then why shouldn’t it be held to have intended the resulting violations of law, and their predictably deadly consequences?