Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vf1f85$2su4$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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..."