3 ms·
As I understand it, the problem is the defense strategy, not the particular case at hand. They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for
by setr 5y ago
As I understand it, the problem is the defense strategy, not the particular case at hand. They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance.
That in this case they shouldn’t be at fault is not the issue; if the case was more blatantly the opposite (the user was clearly not at any fault), bird would still be making the same argument
- dragonwriter 5y ago> They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance. That's not true; California law has limits on indemnity agreements, most notably that they don't apply to wilfull misconduct (and, in some domains, also not to harms due to the sole negligence of the indemnified party, but it's not clear to me that any of those apply here.) So there are clearly circumstances to which the chain indemnity here would not apply, if either the city or Bird had willful wrongdoing. The specific circumstances Peña alleges in this case don't meet that description, though.