3 ms·
I think the incentives in play force companies to act callous. It seems to me that companies are wary to act with empathy lest they get sued and the court takes
by beaconstudios 8y ago
I think the incentives in play force companies to act callous. It seems to me that companies are wary to act with empathy lest they get sued and the court takes it as an admission of guilt (or at least evidence of culpability, or something the jury will pay attention to). It's like that old advice where you should never say "sorry" after a car accident (as a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault) because it can be taken as an admission of fault.
- dagw 8y agoas a Brit, apologising is a natural impulse even when not at fault Someone explained it to me as when an American says "sorry" they mean "I'm sorry I did a bad thing to you" and when a Brit says sorry they mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". Which also explains the not uncommon American response to "sorry" of "Why? It wasn't your fault".
- beaconstudios 8y agoYeah that's it, though many Brits also share that reaction.
- firmgently 8y agoIf I do something bad to a person I say sorry and it means "I'm sorry I did something bad to you". If something that's out of my control happens to someone I might say sorry and mean "I'm sorry a bad thing happened to you". I'm British and find that sometimes I think similarly to another person who is British, and at other times I think differently to another person who is British. It's wild.
- idontpost 8y agoThis is a non-issue in this case. As I stated, liability in the case of harm to pets is extremely limited by law. Pets are treated as simple property by US law and the liability is strictly limited to the cost of replacement. There has never been a civil judgement in the US beyond that. There are CRIMINAL issues involving treatment of animals, but none of those are applicable here. This is pure incompetence by WAG's legal and customer-service departments.