This case isn't actually that big of a deal in the larger Taser safety debate. Essentially, Taser's liability stems from misrepresenting to the police the dangers associated with Taser use. It seems clear to me that the police did not use the Taser in a safe manner, but it also seems the jury found the police were under the impression, fostered by Taser Int., that the Tasers were not capable of causing these types of injuries/deaths.
It's not really the same debate that's going on in Canada where the concern has long been use of the Taser per se, as opposed to excessive use of a Taser. Kind of like delivering a single blow from a baton as opposed to 2 minutes worth of blows from a baton.
As for the value of the award, the article notes that punitive damages were the bulk of the monies paid out. Punitive damages have absolutely nothing to do with the assessed value of the actual damage suffered (in this case, the death of a person), and everything to do with punishing corporations which cannot be held accountable through any other practical means.
|