3 ms·

If you give out apples for free and one of them turns out to hurt someone, are you liable? Edit: I'm not talking about deliberate poisoning or any other malici

If you give out apples for free and one of them turns out to hurt someone, are you liable? Edit: I'm not talking about deliberate poisoning or any other malicious intent. (Apparently this wasn't obvious?)

s1artibartfast 2y ago
IANAL, I expect it would depend on how you represented them and any negligence or malicious intent. You certainly cant hand out poison apples for free without liability.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hnfong 2y ago
  (This is what I learned in school, for common-law-ish jurisdictions.) What you said is true, if there's negligence or malicious intent you're generally liable. In tort. (Edit: also criminally liable as well but that's far off topic) However, whether you sold it or gave it out for free does matter, because for sales of goods, there's also contract law involved, there's usually additional implied warranties about the product being "merchantable" (you see this word in OSS disclaimers as well), and generally you can't disclaim your liability if you sold the product for money. If there's no money and no other considerations involved when you give away the apple, then there's no contract, so only the tort part applies. Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time. Again, IANAL and not legal advice.
  - eh_why_not 2y ago
    > In tort. New word for me. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Perhaps it gets into a legal area that considers "reasonable expectations and behavior". You can absolutely sell buggy, non-functional, and even dangerous code. You just need to go to greater length too ensure that the buyer is informed about what they will be getting. >Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time.l I think it is more about the law attempting to mirror social expectations than having high-minded objectives itself.
gradientsrneat 2y ago
In the United States you have limited liability if you donate the apples to a food bank or a nonprofit feeding the hungry. Not sure about the case where you give away apples directly to random people on the street. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/good-samaritan-act...

s1artibartfast 2y ago

IANAL, I expect it would depend on how you represented them and any negligence or malicious intent. You certainly cant hand out poison apples for free without liability.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hnfong 2y ago
(This is what I learned in school, for common-law-ish jurisdictions.) What you said is true, if there's negligence or malicious intent you're generally liable. In tort. (Edit: also criminally liable as well but that's far off topic) However, whether you sold it or gave it out for free does matter, because for sales of goods, there's also contract law involved, there's usually additional implied warranties about the product being "merchantable" (you see this word in OSS disclaimers as well), and generally you can't disclaim your liability if you sold the product for money. If there's no money and no other considerations involved when you give away the apple, then there's no contract, so only the tort part applies. Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time. Again, IANAL and not legal advice.
- eh_why_not 2y ago
  > In tort. New word for me. A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Perhaps it gets into a legal area that considers "reasonable expectations and behavior". You can absolutely sell buggy, non-functional, and even dangerous code. You just need to go to greater length too ensure that the buyer is informed about what they will be getting. >Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time.l I think it is more about the law attempting to mirror social expectations than having high-minded objectives itself.

gradientsrneat 2y ago

In the United States you have limited liability if you donate the apples to a food bank or a nonprofit feeding the hungry. Not sure about the case where you give away apples directly to random people on the street. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/good-samaritan-act...