3 ms·

I am no expert but I imagine "I hired a licensed contractor to handle this" would provide decent coverage for the home owner? Maybe I'm too naive.

• munk-a 2y ago
  Often times it isn't as that can be abused by bad actors that attempt to insulate themselves from liability by foisting it off on others. I think in a lot of cases markers of intent may be useful here - if you specifically request a class or species of wood that is restricted in logging you'd likely be held liable - "Oh I had assumed this specific rare tropical wood would be ethically sourced"... while as if you'd just requested a hardwood and contractor happened to source an illegally sourced wood the liability would likely be lessened. In this particular case it's actually particle board so end customers were likely completely unaware it was illegally sourced.
• _heimdall 2y ago
  If I were on a federal jury attempting to convict a home owner that had no direct knowledge of where the raw materials were sourced from, there's no way in hell I'd vote guilty.
• DannyBee 2y ago
  No - strict liability does not require any intent, nor can you escape liability by saying you paid someone to handle it. What provides decent coverage is that nobody is going to charge and convict you. They only charge the cases with intent in practice.
  • potato3732842 2y ago
    Which has the wonderful side effect of creating backlog of "we found no intent so we just kinda dropped the matter and didn't bring charges" cases waiting to be prosecuted when some careerist decides they're only N cases way from some milestone and is willing to ruin lives to do it. I know a guy who got screwed over something like that.