2 ms·
True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment. Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufac
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment.
Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufacturers aren’t doing what other manufacturers do, because it would be more convenient for them, despite there being no rule requiring such technology.
That’s a slippery slope. For heaven’s sake let’s make a rule, but trying to sue a manufacturer for not doing what other manufacturers do in absence of a law seems dangerous.
Let’s say Tesla and Ford start requiring all auto parts to be digitally paired, to “prevent theft,” so parts are not interchangeable. If this case succeeds, any automaker who doesn’t do that could be found liable.
- klodolph 4y agoI don’t think we should need to codify every possible problem as a rule. It is enough that Kia knows, or should know, the consequences of their actions, but chose to let somebody else (the owners, the police) deal with the consequences. Basically, I think mens rea is a much more sound basis for law than rules prescribing specific behavior, in general. Like, if you are an engineer and you design a bridge, and it turns out that the bridge fails and you should have known that it would fail, you bear the liability. This basic doctrine can be augmented with specific rules (like, cars must have back-up cameras and airbags, houses must have three-prong outlets with proper grounds and GFCI in bathrooms & kitchens), but the law should not have to make rules for everything before it happens—as long as you have mens rea (you knew the risks or should have known the risks), you bear some responsibility for your actions.