Hurricane Harvey & Irma

I always love the little desiccant packets with their "do not eat" label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I wasn't talking about legal aspect or serving potentially dangerous wares to the customers. EVERYTHING may eventually hurt people.

What I had in mind is that such weird charges and lawsuits lead to manufacturers growing attempts to "warn" the customers they may get hurt by their products if they are mishahdled or misused. Consequently, some of these warnings seem as weird as the abovementioned charges. For instance I heard that chainsaws have a warning not to touch the mechanism when it is on. Like a person in sober senses may do the opposite!

So, what I'm driving at: if the house owners who suffered from the flood complain that they were not EXPLICITLY warned of the danger (which is crystal clear to everybody when FLOOD PLAIN is mentioned) they may still win the case. They would say that the danger of flood wasn't mentioned in the ownership documents (don't know the correct name for them) and no boards with respective warnings had been spotted near the houses for sale.

---

Not really. What you seized upon was that both cases involve liability, but so do most legal matters, and there are many different forms of liability. Lessons drawn from one case may not apply to another.

The one you invoked involved corporate business liability with respect to consumer goods and purchases. The Texas flooding suit involves, among other things, the liability of the federal government in its use, seizure, or destruction of private land and property (as a Constitutional issue).

These are just different cases and different kinds of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Not really. What you seized upon was that both cases involve liability, but so do most legal matters, and there are many different forms of liability. Lessons drawn from one case may not apply to another.

The one you invoked involved corporate business liability with respect to consumer goods and purchases. The Texas flooding suit involves, among other things, the liability of the federal government in its use, seizure, or destruction of private land and property (as a Constitutional issue).

These are just different cases and different kinds of law.

---

Probably. I am no lawyer. But it seems to me this "we weren't explicitly told" may be used by the suitors.