Skip Navigation
No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
Theo @lemmy.world
• 97%

How do people end up winning lawsuits against companies due to a missing label or sign?

(not asking for advice, just a thought that popped into my head)

I understand that medical injuries are a factor in something like a missing caution sign, but how is it that someone can sue and win in a case of common sense when a company has no sign? For example, many companies use signs so they are not liable for theft at say a public laundromat but some don't have this. How do they avoid a lawsuit when they don't have a sign even though it is common sense? What type of law protects a customer when a business lacks a sign and allows them to win against a business owner?

16
16 comments

  • You're going to have to clarify what jurisdiction, since USA law is going to be vastly different than EU law, in the realms of product, medical devices, and public accommodations liability.

    But if we did examine the USA, then we can find some generalized rules. For product liability -- the responsibility of manufacturers and distributors of a tangible object -- strict liability will lay when a product has an inherent defect (meaning it didn't become defective after the initial sale) and this defect causes some sort of injury. Although this criteria doesn't depend on the frequency of injuries, if a product is accumulating a body count, that's usually a good sign that there's a defect. Causality is also important to establish, as well as any mitigations that may have existed. On this front, a manufacturer might argue that the warnings in the instruction manual specifically advised against diving headlong into a 30 cm deep swimming pool. And although warning consumers to not do something may be somewhat effective at discharging liability, warnings alone do not prevent someone from trying a lawsuit anyway; the popular wisdom that the "pages of warnings" in manuals are written by lawyers is only partly true, since most manufacturer prefer repeat business by customers that are still alive.

    Medical product liability is similar, but slightly different because medical products are built for a specific purpose but a doctor can instruct a patient to use it differently, if medically appropriate. If not used as instructed by the manufacturer, the manufacturer is usually off the hook, but the doctor might be liable for medical malpractice. Maybe. Doctor liability in the USA is framed within a "duty of care", meaning that the doctor takes on a responsibility to act with a reasonable degree of skill and competency. The "standard of care" idea is related, in that it sets the floor for what is reasonable for all doctors. It is, for example, grossly negligent to a drunk doctor to examine a patient. Harms from such negligence can be litigated through a malpractice suit. But this doesn't mean all harm is actionable. A successful appendectomy that results in blood sepsis is always going to be a possibility, even with the best infection controls in place. If all the staff discharged their duties within their training, then negligence does not attach. Also, malpractice is not something which can be waived, because even if a patient doesn't sue, a doctor's medical license can be suspended. Whereas the risks of a surgery can be described in detail to a patient, for informed consent.

    Finally, public accommodations law sets the floor for how public and private businesses conduct themselves if they provide goods or services to the general public. Very prominently in this realm are accessibility requirements, which are rules that assure the disabled will not have undue burdens that able-bodied people wouldn't face. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides for very stiff fines for non-compliance, and because its objective was to set the standard, there is no provision for a "fix it ticket" approach for enforcement. That is to say, the ADA does not allow business owners to wait until a wheelchair user makes a complaint; they must follow the standard from day 1.

    No doubt there is abuse of the liability laws -- there's nothing more American than filing "ambitious" lawsuits -- and this is just a brief (and uncited, '"from the hip") summary of possible areas of law that might answer your question. But I hope it gives you an idea of why a warning or sticker or sign might incur liability. Or at the very least, an unexpected lawsuit from left-field.

    27

    • So it seems like if health or safety or disability is not involved it is much harder. If a Laundromat has a sign that says they are not liable for unattended clothing that is stolen that would save them. How are they liable if it is a case where there is no sign?

      6

      • I think the laundromat case is more "don't complain to management when you're stuff gets stolen" than it is about preventing lawsuit.

        11

      • Approximately 90% of not liable for X signs have no legal basis. It's purely a deterrent.

        8

      • IANAL, and lawsuits almost always end up being very fact-intensive, which means that the specifics of the case often make the difference. So it'll depend. But broadly speaking, if there isn't a specific law -- eg ADA -- that specifically assigns liability, then the most typical claim someone would try to make is a theory of negligence. That is, failure of the laundromat to behave with a reasonable degree of care.

        In the absence of signage or disclaimers or waivers (like in some amusement park rides), the jury will have to assess whether this laundromat's environment suggested some heightened sense of security (eg security cameras, even fake ones) or that management implied or leaned into marketing that made it sound like clothes wouldn't be stolen there. But a typical coin-op laundromat has people going in and out at all times of day, so it's not reasonable to think it's akin to Fort Knox, even without a sign indicating that management disclaims liability for clothes theft.

        As for posting that sign, it won't change the general lack of liability on the laundromat in a case where someone snatches clothing. But the equation is different if, say, a patron asked a staff member to watch their laundry for 5 minutes as they make a phone call, and that staff member agreed but then went out for a smoke, resulting in an opportunistic thief stealing the $80 bras from the dryer. Here, the laundromat would carry liability, because although they don't normally watch the clothes, they agreed to do it this once and did it so badly that the clothes were stolen. That's negligence, despite the sign.

        That said, posting a warning sign is generally encouraged, since a core principle of liability is that avoidance of harms is always going to be preferable than litigating after they've already happened. So if the sign causes patrons to stay near their clothes in the machine, then some amount of theft has been outright avoided. For this reason, courts seldom will punish a business for having an overzealous sign, unless the sign itself is materially false or the sign itself causes a hazard (eg a loose "Gusty Winds" highway warning sign that falls over in a light breeze, injuring a middle school student).

        But to muddy the waters some more, another core principle of liability is that liability should fall upon the person whose behavior if changed will prevent future harms. For stolen clothes, it's quite clear that the thief should be liable for the value of the stolen bras. If a court instead holds the laundromat liable, then that creates a perverse incentive where rather than spending money on more/better washers, the laundromat must spend that money on cameras and private security, raising the cost of the laundry machines. In additional to absolving civil liability on the thief. All for something which would be more cheaply solved by patrons just watching their laundry, or perhaps installing hasps on the machines so patrons can bring their own locks.

        On the flip side, denying liability means the patron has lost the value of their clothes. Perhaps they now have to spend more on "clothes insurance", which only serves to benefit an insurance company rather than affording more bras. Adjudicating liability -- in any legal system -- is a thankless job and there are never perfect answers to the delicate balancing act. Life is messy, and even the best civil tribunals struggle to make sense in all of the turbulent circumstances.

        TL;DR: it depends

        1

  • Lawsuits often go in front of juries.

    Civil juries do whatever the hell they want.

    Every step a company takes to make sure that a reasonable customer will avoid hurting themselves makes it more likely a jury will blame an unreasonable one who hurts themselves being unreasonable.

    8

  • In my region ( USA), ordinary people simply don’t have the resources for individual lawsuits like this.

    It would have to be a well connected or monied individual to have any chance. Or the situation is so egregious and documented enough, that a law firm thinks it can make money, by taking most of the winnings from the victims

    6

  • Suicide note.

    I'm kidding

    1
You've viewed 16 comments.