3 ms·

That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getti

by tw04 3y ago

That doesn't really make sense either though. If you buy a brand new Ford, and punch a hole in the brake lines on purpose, then sell the car - Ford isn't getting sued by the buyer when something horrible happens. They have 0 liability, and are under no obligation to put in measures to prevent you from damaging the brake lines. Someone jailbreaking a phone, then installing malware sounds like a great way for the seller to face criminal and civil crimes, but I don't see why Motorola is under ANY responsibility for the state of the device after initial sale unless it's refurbished by Motorola.

saxonww 3y ago
I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.
- tw04 3y ago
  >I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it. There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety Not for tampering by a previous owner. You can do that with a laptop

by tw04 3y ago

saxonww 3y ago

I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? Like I said in another comment, I think it's ridiculous. I'm just open to the idea that they are doing it to protect themselves rather than trying to give (I assume) a very very small minority of their users the finger.

tw04 3y ago
>I agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety. This happens, right? Someone is harmed and they assert it's because the manufacturer of the thing didn't take adequate care to prevent a situation? I'm not aware of any example of a company getting sued for consumer safety due to a consumer buying a good, modifying it in a way to cause intentional harm, then reselling it to another party. I would be absolutely fascinated to read if someone has an example of it. There's a lot of things our legal system gets wrong, but that would be absolute insanity. No business would be able to function with what is essentially unlimited liability.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> agree, but I am thinking about scenarios where businesses get sued for consumer safety Not for tampering by a previous owner. You can do that with a laptop