Very often, it is a consequence of doing Not Quite the Right Thing. The Wide-Eyed Idealist is prone to this, and tends to turn them into a Knight in Sour Armor at best. Named for a well-known saying attributed to Clare Boothe Luce. In many cases whether a bad outcome was undeserved or not depends on the details.Īs Robert Heinlein's character Lazarus Long observes in one story, "Good intentions are no substitute for knowing how the buzzsaw works." Which doesn't mean that life is not often cruelly unjust, it merely means that things are often not as simple as they look at first glance. Sometimes good intentions bring unjust punishment, but sometimes good intentions result in very bad results because the good-intentioned person was also foolish, incompetent, ignorant, or just mistaken. It should also be noted that this trope is more complicated than it looks. If they stick it through even to the end, knowing what's coming to them, it shows who they are in the dark.
Not every hero can handle this, and if it happens often enough or particularly badly enough, a hero may very well fall. On the other hand, it can also happen to a villain making a Sudden Principled Stand or showing that Even Evil Has Standards. Or being targeted by people who assume you have Chronic Hero Syndrome and so will be glad to help them for free. More often, helping out exposes the hero to some other danger, like the wrath of a villain whose plans were disrupted by the good deed, or the wrath of a populace that is opposed to the method of help, such as in many Burn the Witch! stories that involve actual witches, or being Arrested for Heroism. If this happens because the hero doesn't want unnecessary violence, it can be a case of Pacifism Backfire. Suhrmann, 8 Utah 2d 35, 37, 327 P.2d 822, 823 (1958).If this happens because the hero helps people who are ungrateful, it can be a case of All of the Other Reindeer or The Farmer and the Viper. Third, all else failing, always warn those using your things about any known problems or defects. Second, do not allow others to use things that are not in good repair. So, what can you do to mitigate your risk? A few tips. All three scenarios could expose you to liability under the framework set out in Schneider. Or suppose that you provide a home-cooked meal that contains common allergens like peanuts. Or suppose you let your nephew borrow your car knowing that the tires are bald. For instance, suppose you loaned a ladder to a neighbor knowing that one of the steps routinely comes loose. While the wholesaler in Schneider escaped liability, scenarios that potentially could give rise to liability are myriad. In other words, the wholesaler escaped liability because the wholesaler had no knowledge that the retailer intended to sell the pork raw or uncooked. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict in the wholesaler’s favor on grounds that the retailer knew that the pork was raw and unprocessed and otherwise had assured the wholesaler that the retailer would cook the pork before selling it to others. The consumer sued the wholesaler for compensation for the injuries suffered. The retailer then sold the pork to a consumer, who contracted trichinosis, a food-borne disease caused by a parasite, after eating the pork.
Suhrmann, in which a wholesaler provided a retailer with raw, unprocessed pork. Third, the supplier fails to use reasonable care to safeguard against the danger or to inform the user of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.
Second, the supplier knows or reasonably should know that the user will not realize the danger. First, the supplier knows of the chattel’s dangerous potential. The supplier of a chattel incurs liability for injury caused thereby if three conditions are met. Under Utah law, a person who supplies a “chattel” – a fancy legal term for personal property – to another potentially faces legal liability, if the chattel causes physical injury to the person who uses the chattel. Have you ever loaned a tool to a neighbor to assist with a household project? Or how about a car to a relative to assist with getting to work or school? Or how about provided a homecooked meal to mother who recently gave birth to a new baby? In doing so, did it even cross your mind that your good intentions could expose you to legal liability? If not, it should have.
0 kommentar(er)
