Different countries, different laws. Along with differing understandings - and expectations.
-40hz
Turn the bank story round - suppose the bank CEO is crossing the street and the handbrake on a parked car fails and knocks him over causing severe permanent damage.
Do you think the teacher who owned the car would get away with the 'shit happens' defence - not only would they be sued to within an inch of their life by the *anker and/or his spawn but the local authorities would also be on it like the metaphorical ton of bricks with probable jail time.
-Carol Haynes
You can advance hypotheticals endlessly. However, in the US you wouldn't necessarily face a criminal charge unless it could be shown that there was some personal culpability for that failing handbrake. If people could be held
criminally liable for anything and everything that ever occurred, from any product they ever owned or used, then nobody would buy or use anything.
Not to say you might not be charged. (Criminal prosecutors can be as guilty of grandstanding as any personal injury attorney.) But it's a tough thing to prove in court that somebody
knowingly and deliberately did something such that they should be held culpable. Especially for a product failure. (Not remembering to
set the handbrake would be an entirely different matter, because you could be held to be
criminally negligent for failing to do so.) But usually for something to be considered
criminal in the US there has to be clear indications of
reckless disregard or criminal
intent. So surprise, surprise - "shit happens"
can be a valid defense against criminal charges, depending on the circumstances. Not so for civil torts however.
As far as civil suits go, there doesn't need to be a good (or even a real reason) to sue anybody in the US. You can sue somebody because you're having a bad day and you don't like their eye color.
Our court system is clogged with cases totally devoid of legal merit because of it. And even a complete lack of merit (or logical sense) is no impediment to getting a gullible jury to find for a plaintiff. Or to get a defendant to settle in order to avoid the cost of litigation. (Yet another example of risk management.) Such is the 'comedy' of liability litigation in the USA.
The unfortunate side-effect of this is that the bogus cases have introduced so much noise into the system that legitimate claims for redress have gotten devalued in the process. And since so many liability claims
are a complete joke, those sued (and their attorneys) have learned to adopt a no-holds barred defense strategy. A strategy that's arguably even more important to take
if you are being unjustly accused.Shame really. Except for the attorneys. As one told me: Law and justice are all well and good. But at the end of the day - be it right, wrong, or something in between - its ALL
billable time.
So again: Different countries, different laws. Along with differing understandings - and expectations.
As a society, we get what legal systems we're willing to tolerate.
Recent Posts
His post is what's directly above yours. 
)