3 ms·

It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung

by sp332 5y ago

It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung action.

falcolas 5y ago
Most laws tend to frown upon traps. And the blame goes to the one who sets the trap, not the one who trips it, even if the victim was engaging in otherwise illegal actions.
- bluGill 5y ago
  That depends on the trap and how you set it. If you dig a hole for a house and someone falls in you are not liable.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liability-private-property.html https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liabili...
    - devney 5y ago
      Not really related to the discussion at hand but I often wonder if that's the right way to make laws? "Intent is king" is the watchword of modern American jurisprudence but I ask you: If you killed 3 people, are they less dead if it was an accident? If people knew they would be punished for consequences instead of intent, would people be more careful about considering the consequences of their actions? Would that make for, just in general, a more observant, more considerate, more intelligent populace, with less collateral damage? By extension, might that result in more just/fair laws just in general? I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.
  - q-rews 5y ago
    That sounds wrong and likely varies wildly across jurisdictions. If you dig a hole on your property you better secure it, or else kids might fall in.
    - MichaelZuo 5y ago
      Yes, that’s actually why tort reform is such a big topic in American jurisprudence. Because property owners are liable if a bunch of kids suffer injuries on their property by falling into a hole, almost regardless of intent. Yes even if it’s properly secured with fencing, in many jurisdictions the trespassers sue for damages and succeed often. Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of tort liability. To a lesser extent it’s true in Canada and the UK too I believe.
    - a3n 5y ago
      It's an "attractive nuisance." You'd better lock your hot tub and garage freezer too.

by sp332 5y ago

It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung action.

falcolas 5y ago

Most laws tend to frown upon traps. And the blame goes to the one who sets the trap, not the one who trips it, even if the victim was engaging in otherwise illegal actions.

bluGill 5y ago
That depends on the trap and how you set it. If you dig a hole for a house and someone falls in you are not liable.
- falcolas 5y ago
  As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liability-private-property.html https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liabili...
  - devney 5y ago
    Not really related to the discussion at hand but I often wonder if that's the right way to make laws? "Intent is king" is the watchword of modern American jurisprudence but I ask you: If you killed 3 people, are they less dead if it was an accident? If people knew they would be punished for consequences instead of intent, would people be more careful about considering the consequences of their actions? Would that make for, just in general, a more observant, more considerate, more intelligent populace, with less collateral damage? By extension, might that result in more just/fair laws just in general? I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.
- q-rews 5y ago
  That sounds wrong and likely varies wildly across jurisdictions. If you dig a hole on your property you better secure it, or else kids might fall in.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Yes, that’s actually why tort reform is such a big topic in American jurisprudence. Because property owners are liable if a bunch of kids suffer injuries on their property by falling into a hole, almost regardless of intent. Yes even if it’s properly secured with fencing, in many jurisdictions the trespassers sue for damages and succeed often. Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of tort liability. To a lesser extent it’s true in Canada and the UK too I believe.
  - a3n 5y ago
    It's an "attractive nuisance." You'd better lock your hot tub and garage freezer too.