Some context [1] that is missing from the article:
> 3M has said the CAEv2 earplugs, which were designed in the late 1990s so soldiers could carry only one set of earplugs in multiple types of combat, aren’t faulty unless they are worn incorrectly and 3M said it worked in “close coordination” with the U.S. military to develop the design.
> 3M tried to use the government-contractor defense, which allows companies to be protected if equipment made under a government contract is later found to be defective, but the court rejected the defense because there was never a written contract between the U.S. government and Aearo regarding the earplugs' design.
Unfortunately, I can't find any clear answers around whether they do always work when worn correctly, whether they were manufactured to specification or not, or whether the specification was ultimately (verbally?) approved by the government.
All of which makes it exceedingly hard for any of us to judge whether this was 3M being negligent in design or manufacturing, or the government being negligent in ordering something it knew or should have known was defective in advance, or the military being negligent in not ensuring soldiers were using them correctly, or multiple of these. Unless someone here has more sources?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/27/3m-may-...
> 3M has said the CAEv2 earplugs, which were designed in the late 1990s so soldiers could carry only one set of earplugs in multiple types of combat, aren’t faulty unless they are worn incorrectly and 3M said it worked in “close coordination” with the U.S. military to develop the design.
> 3M tried to use the government-contractor defense, which allows companies to be protected if equipment made under a government contract is later found to be defective, but the court rejected the defense because there was never a written contract between the U.S. government and Aearo regarding the earplugs' design.
Unfortunately, I can't find any clear answers around whether they do always work when worn correctly, whether they were manufactured to specification or not, or whether the specification was ultimately (verbally?) approved by the government.
All of which makes it exceedingly hard for any of us to judge whether this was 3M being negligent in design or manufacturing, or the government being negligent in ordering something it knew or should have known was defective in advance, or the military being negligent in not ensuring soldiers were using them correctly, or multiple of these. Unless someone here has more sources?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/27/3m-may-...