Nope. That is rarely true—actually honored more in the breach—and as a lawyer you should know this, but it may well be outside your area of practice.
Here we go again.
It was very much in my former wheelhouse, And I can tell you that some of the thinking here is common among product liability defendants. That is not to imply that anything you have said here or proposed is legally actionable. So relax.
But what you are advocating is potentially unsafe for the purposes for which it is reasonably intended to be used. I said potentially. In this instance, not for the rejuvenation of rubber, but for use in a magnetic tape machine, as it relates to the tape media. That is the intellectual marketplace into which you are injecting this concept. And the burden is not on others to prove it unsafe or destructive, but on those promoting it to prove it safe -- for the purposes and in the environment in which it is likely to be used. That is just how the real world works. It really does.
I have no doubt that as a chemist, you are able to formulate a compound that may rejuvenate rubber. But you are propounding it for use in magnetic tape machines, where it is possible, even foreseeable, that it will come into contact with magnetic tape oxide binders.
Expert question:
What analysis, using generally accepted scientific standards, have you conducted as to what the effects of your formula will be on the commercially established existing stocks of magnetic tape media polymer oxide binders? And if so, what did you conclude? Settle that question, and you are off and running. And if you have not looked into it, why not? In some venues, a jury would be very interested to know those answers.
Saying that you are 'agnostic' about its use in this context is similar to a rat poison manufacturer saying they are agnostic about its use as a children's cereal. That is why the rat poison manufacturer has a duty to warn. And I can assure you, they honor that duty. A duty to warn. Think about that for a minute.
It is similar to declaring that something will continue to be used until proof of danger has been established, when no meaningful safety tests have even been conducted. Someone here works in pharma. Do you think that new drugs are simply thrown out on the market without extensive testing as to all potential side effects? Is it up to the doctors and patients to prove the dangers before the drug is pulled from the market, where the manufacturer never undertakes those tests? Sick patients sometimes get very rich when that happens.
Lay people take what experts say more seriously. They tend to rely on it more than other opinions. If someone who they think is an expert says to use or do something, they are more likely to use it or do it. So there is the inducement factor.
I have learned many things about experts over the years. Without revealing too much personal, as I come here merely for pleasure in my hobby, I have dealt with countless experts. You might say I am an expert on experts! "Expert" is a well-defined legal term of art. I have learned about them and from them over the years. Most are well-meaning, sincere, earnest, and careful to follow the generally accepted standards of their field, but no further. I like experts. We need experts. They make our lives better. And that like most reasonable minds, good experts often differ, as no field or discipline is ever really settled. There are always new discoveries, innovations and processes just around the corner. But for the here and the now, we are stuck with our state of the arts, and our generally accepted standards. When experts differ, I am particularly happy, because I know the issue at hand is really being thought about, and that the most viable thesis will most likely emerge.
And it is a generally accepted standard that purveyors of products and even ideas, whether they be a drug, a car, or a conjectured formula for the rejuvenation of rubber, conduct reasonable investigation as to the consequences of its reasonable use in the field of use or application intended. Sometimes it is an ethical consideration, sometimes it is a legal duty. Either way, it is an affirmative obligation.
In this instance, we are not restoring an o-ring in a CV joint. We are potentially placing chemicals on magnetic tape substrate. Anymore than if you were advocating this chemical for use on automobile tires, whether the structural integrity of the tire would be impacted must be contemplated, the impact on that tape should be as well.
And when I have encountered experts at their worst, they doggedly cling to their opinions, no matter the fact pattern or any expanded considerations. I call it the 'expert trap'. These experts are the ones who know more and more, about less and less -- until they know everything about nothing. Those are the ones that cause problems, for everyone. Please don't fall into this trap. Don't cling to your hypothesis come hell or high water.
You seem like a nice, earnest person with some good chemistry background. And you sincerely want to put forward some viable suggestions to restore rubber. I am not trying to be condescending or rude to you. All I am pointing out is that even experts must contemplate the broader environment of their work. And that there is an established set of standards for these things that extends beyond just the chemistry, and into the specific fields, markets and industries into which those works are being contemplated and used.
