Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded
Subject: Re: Diagnostics
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:26:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vf1f85$2su4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veekcp$9rsj$1@dont-email.me> <veuggc$1l5eo$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <veummc$3gbqs$1@dont-email.me> <vev7cu$1rdu5$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vevb65$3mr5m$1@dont-email.me> <lg28hjtvcnh6csh7u9ujnn7aojf80b51im@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:27:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f1fb61eb47749dfdb9d982847413c66";
	logging-data="95172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19G7eeM+YWUPkQutDWwgXUp"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NrWzpx4nH6yWdeNF4yBgrFj0aNE=
In-Reply-To: <lg28hjtvcnh6csh7u9ujnn7aojf80b51im@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3721

On 10/19/2024 12:58 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 21:05:14 -0700, Don Y
>> But, "due diligence" can insulate the manufacturer, to some extent.
>> No one ever *admits* to "doing a bad job".
> 
> Actually due diligence /can't/ insulate a manufacturer if the issue
> goes to trial. Members of a jury may feel sorry for the litigant(s),
> or conclude that the manufacturer can afford whatever they award ...
> or maybe they just don't like the manufacturer's lawyer.

You missed my "to some extent" qualifier.  It allows you to make
the case /to that jury/ that you *thought* about the potential
problems and made a concerted attempt to address them.  Contrast
that with "Didn't it occur to the manufacturer that a customer
might LIKELY use their device in THIS manner, resulting in
THESE sorts of problems?"

You can never understand how a device can be "misapplied".  But,
not making ANY attempt to address "off label" uses is sure to
result in a hostile attitude from those judging your behavior:
"So, you made HOW MUCH money off this product and still
couldn't afford the time/effort to have considered these issues?"

"Small fish" are seldom targeted by such lawsuits as they have
few assets and can fold without consequences to their owners.

> Unlike judges, juries do /not/ have to justify their decisions,
> Moreover, in some US juridictions, the decision of a civil case need
> not be unanimous but only that of a quorum.
> 
>> If your doorbell malfunctions, what "damages" are you going
>> to claim?  If your garage door doesn't open when commanded?
>> If your yard doesn't get watered?  If you weren't promptly
>> notified that the mail had just been delivered?  Or, that
>> the compressor in the freezer had failed and your foodstuffs
>> had spoiled, as a result?
>>
>> The costs of litigation are reasonably high.  Lawyers want
>> to see the LIKELIHOOD of a big payout before entertaining
>> such litigation.
> 
> So they created the "class action", where all the litigants
> individually may have very small claims, but when put together the
> total becomes significant.

But you still have to demonstrate a loss.  And, be able to
argue some particular value to that loss.  "Well, MAYBE
Publishers' Clearinghouse came to my house to give me that
oversized/cartoon check but the doorbell MIGHT not have
rung.  So, I want '$3000/week for life' as compensation..."