One criticism of safety regulations are that they are paternalistic. In the case cited provide a strong argument for or against the verdict based upon your thinking in how comprehensive safety regulation must be: The consumer purchased a lawnmower. The manual and the mower itself had many operational warnings on what to do, what not to do, and the safety equipment to wear. The consumer put on his safety goggles as suggested by the warnings and hefted the lawnmower with his hands to trim his high hedges. The mower fell on him and severely injured his legs. The consumer won the case against the manufacturer for failure to warn, 'don't use this mower to trim hedges' and got paid a lot of money.