Hay and Spier (2005) show that, when the consumer may be insolvent, then (abstracting from litigation costs) efficient care is taken when the residual harm to third parties (that is, the excess of realized harm over the consumer's available wealth) is shifted to the firm. Polinsky and Shavell (2010) argue, relying on a model such as that of Section 2, that only the harms of third parties should be shifted to the firm since a consumer will shift her expected harm to the firm through the market price. However, as noted by Goldberg and Zipursky (2010), it may be very difficult to distinguish between consumers and third parties. For instance, the smoker at home exposes family members; should those non-smoking family members be viewed as third parties?