3 ms·
I agree that the only person who should be prosecuted criminally in these cases is the one who committed the felonies, but the question is about whether people
by saghm 4y ago
I agree that the only person who should be prosecuted criminally in these cases is the one who committed the felonies, but the question is about whether people should have civil liability. Those are two very different legal standards, and the bar for civil liability is a lot lower. It doesn't really seem like people are discussing this aspect at all in this thread (not just you, but this seemed like a relevant place to bring up the point). I don't feel like I have a strong enough grasp of the legal issues at hand to have a strong opinion about whether there should be civil liability in these cases, but I'm not at all convinced that "someone else is more responsible" is a good counterargument, since there's no reason that multiple parties could be liable.
- SllX 4y agoYou need the case specifics to usefully argue for or against civil liability. The standard of proof might be lower but that must makes it more messy. Apple’s taken some measures to prevent themselves from being liable. Were they enough? Is it possible to sell this kind of product and do enough to insulate themselves without getting some laws changed? Who knows. Maybe this Court will weigh in on that, assuming Apple doesn’t settle to make this go away. There’s a ceiling on the useful discussion we can have about civil liability in an HN thread about an ongoing case about this specific product. The same is true with guns and beers: you need facts of the case that are being argued, not just a couple of off-the-cuff whatabouts.
- saghm 4y agoThat seems pretty reasonable. It doesn't make it less strange that people are so confidently asserting that there's no possible reasonable basis for a lawsuit though.