4 ms·

If I buy a chainsaw and accidentally cut my finger off I wouldn't assume that I have any legal right to sue the chainsaw manufacturer or the person who sold it

If I buy a chainsaw and accidentally cut my finger off I wouldn't assume that I have any legal right to sue the chainsaw manufacturer or the person who sold it to me. At least not where I'm from - is this not the case in the USA?

FussyZeus 7y ago
A more fitting metaphor along this line would be if you bought a chainsaw-weilding robot and directed it to cut down some trees, and it instead cut off your finger. Once a product has agency and is making decisions of its own accord, if it makes the wrong decisions, I don't think it's unreasonable to say the person who programmed it has some level of responsibility, likely some kind of negligence.
- rytill 7y ago
  You really can’t pin anything like this on a single person, as tempting as it may be. The company that sells a product should deal with the consequences and accept responsibility as a complete unit. If someone coded something and somehow the bug eluded understanding all the way up the chain, it’s everyones fault for not putting more “solidness” pressure all the way down.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    Yeah you’re right, poor wording on my part. Agree.
maxlybbert 7y ago
Theoretically, that’s how it works in the US, but not in practice. Years ago, I noticed that my kids’ inner tube had multiple disclaimers, including multiple English disclaimers. The disclaimers next to the Union Flag, Australian Flag, and Canadian Flag were “use under competent supervision.” The disclaimer next to the US Flag was much longer and more detailed (“use under adult supervision” [note that is different from “competent supervision”], “do not tow from boat,” “do not use when drunk,” “do not dive into”, etc.). It did not make me proud to be American. Additionally, many states have the concept of “joint and several liability,” so that if multiple parties share responsibility for an accident, the victim can collect the full amount from any of them and the perpetrators are expected to pay each other appropriately. The end result is that, generally, the company with the deepest pockets pays the full amount and then hopes to collect from the other parties later. So, the answer is that you sue the chainsaw manufacturer, the chain manufacturer, the landowner, etc. and hope that they settle or that you get a final judgement that you can collect from the richest one, even if that particular party is held to be, say, 1% responsible.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>any legal right to sue // Nitpick, but you can sue for anything, just not necessarily be successful at it. This, along with [AIUI] not default providing an award of costs to a successful plaintiff in USA, makes it possible to sue and get a substantial out of court settlement because the risk profile is such that this is cheaper than paying your defence lawyers considering the [mathematical] expectation that you might lose a case that seemingly has no merits. This is why you get warnings like "chainsaws are dangerous and may cause bodily injury or death, only for use by certified personnel". Then you can't [it is hoped by all reasonable people!] successfully claim that your naivety should have been accounted for, as it was by the warning.

FussyZeus 7y ago

A more fitting metaphor along this line would be if you bought a chainsaw-weilding robot and directed it to cut down some trees, and it instead cut off your finger. Once a product has agency and is making decisions of its own accord, if it makes the wrong decisions, I don't think it's unreasonable to say the person who programmed it has some level of responsibility, likely some kind of negligence.

rytill 7y ago
You really can’t pin anything like this on a single person, as tempting as it may be. The company that sells a product should deal with the consequences and accept responsibility as a complete unit. If someone coded something and somehow the bug eluded understanding all the way up the chain, it’s everyones fault for not putting more “solidness” pressure all the way down.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Yeah you’re right, poor wording on my part. Agree.

maxlybbert 7y ago

Theoretically, that’s how it works in the US, but not in practice. Years ago, I noticed that my kids’ inner tube had multiple disclaimers, including multiple English disclaimers. The disclaimers next to the Union Flag, Australian Flag, and Canadian Flag were “use under competent supervision.” The disclaimer next to the US Flag was much longer and more detailed (“use under adult supervision” [note that is different from “competent supervision”], “do not tow from boat,” “do not use when drunk,” “do not dive into”, etc.). It did not make me proud to be American. Additionally, many states have the concept of “joint and several liability,” so that if multiple parties share responsibility for an accident, the victim can collect the full amount from any of them and the perpetrators are expected to pay each other appropriately. The end result is that, generally, the company with the deepest pockets pays the full amount and then hopes to collect from the other parties later. So, the answer is that you sue the chainsaw manufacturer, the chain manufacturer, the landowner, etc. and hope that they settle or that you get a final judgement that you can collect from the richest one, even if that particular party is held to be, say, 1% responsible.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

>any legal right to sue // Nitpick, but you can sue for anything, just not necessarily be successful at it. This, along with [AIUI] not default providing an award of costs to a successful plaintiff in USA, makes it possible to sue and get a substantial out of court settlement because the risk profile is such that this is cheaper than paying your defence lawyers considering the [mathematical] expectation that you might lose a case that seemingly has no merits. This is why you get warnings like "chainsaws are dangerous and may cause bodily injury or death, only for use by certified personnel". Then you can't [it is hoped by all reasonable people!] successfully claim that your naivety should have been accounted for, as it was by the warning.