On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:14:25 -0500, Robert Deering wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:44:40 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> Designers and manufacturers of products that can easily be proven to be
>> defective and capable of causing great damage and harm can be sued big
>> time and the lawyers can make a pile of money. Why aren't they suing the
>> designers, producers, and vendors of Windows email clients? If they would
>> just sue them, then the people that are producing the buggy software
>> would have to clean up their act, and the threat of virii attack would be
>> minimized, and all the good netizens would be happy, and even the lawyers
>> would be happy gloating over their success and their money. In short,
>> almost everyone except the defendant is happy whenever a lawsuit is won for
>> a good and just cause. All Windows email clients that fail to meet
>> safety standards should be recalled.
> I've seen intelligent, knowledgable discussion on this. I didn't really
> understand it all. What I _did_ understand is that in any suit involving
> negligence, it's difficult for the plaintiff to succeed unless it's
> shown that the defendant's actions weren't up to accepted or established
> practice. Windows e-mail clients, especially Outlook, ARE the accepted,
> established practice, for good or ill. Correction: for ill.
> In order to have a good shot at fairness, there would have to exist at
> least two other clients in just as wide use that treated attachments in
> the truly proper way. Until that happens it's still actionable, but much
> much harder to win.
This is all very interesting to me, Bob. I think you are right. It is
for just this kind of reasoning that a doctor is most unlikely to be
successfully sued if he can prove that all his actions were in accordance
with all that is generally accepted among his professional peers, despite
whatever unfortunate outcome the patient might have suffered in the course
of his treatment. As I think more about this matter, I suppose this is the
way things ought to be, for good or for ill.
Some juries have taken some notable exceptions to the rule. Except for
customers who specifically request iced coffee, everyone knows that the most
acceptable serving of coffee in a restaurant is one that is piping hot, and
the hotter the better. Almost all professional restauranteers would testify
to this. This did not prevent a woman customer from successfully suing
McDonald's for four million dollars when she clumsily spilled some of their
very hot coffee on her thigh and suffered the pain of a minor scalding and a
few blisters.
The problem with unsafe email clients can be cured simply by legislation
mandating the standards. They have passed laws prescribing certain safety
standards for cars, electric appliances, firearms, kerosene heaters, crash
helmets, baby cribs, child safety seats, and practically everything else
thought to pose potential harm to consumers. Why not just pass a law
prohibiting the manufacture and use of unsafe email clients? Do you have
any thoughts about this?
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for DOS
-- Visit the Arachne DOS Browser Home Page, http://home.arachne.cz
