| You be the jury |
by SnappingTurtle |
2007-02-16 08:15:20 |
| This is a hypothetical situation. It is not inspired by any specific event.
Joan goes to BuySmart Grocery Store and buys a jar of Snappy Peanut Butter. Joan lets the checkout clerk scan her BuySmart card. The information on the card traces to a record in BuySmart's database that lists Joan's home address and phone number. The database also lists everything Joan has ever bought at BuySmart using her card.
A day after Joan buys the peanut butter, all Snappy Peanut Butter in the area is recalled due to salmonella poisoning. Immediately upon hearing about the recall, BuySmart removes all Snappy Peanut Butter from their shelves. They also put up little signs in the peanut butter aisle that describe the recall. BuySmart gives refunds on any Snappy Peanut Butter that is in the batches being recalled. That is the full extent of their actions regarding the recall.
The day after the recall, Joan still has not heard about the recall and eats some of the Snappy Peanut Butter. She gets salmonella poisoning and dies.
Joan's husband sues BuySmart Grocery Store because:
- They knew about the recall
- They knew Joan had bought the peanut butter
- They had Joan's contact information
- They did not even attempt to let her know about the danger
You be the jury. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
hangings to good for em! (n/t) | by tesla_koil | 2007-02-16 08:17:26 |
|
Not Their Problem. Legally. | by Havoc | 2007-02-16 08:18:56 |
|
I Aggree. (n/t) | by lheggland | 2007-02-16 08:25:15 |
|
As I understand german law, | by chrisP | 2007-02-16 08:26:13 |
|
It's not for selling $recalled_food, | by hadji | 2007-02-16 08:30:50 |
|
I disagree, potentially, | by jeff_uk | 2007-02-16 08:34:43 |
|
2 days later doesn't matter. | by hadji | 2007-02-16 08:41:24 |
|
Would a newspaper announcement | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 08:47:02 |
|
What it comes down to for me is that | by hadji | 2007-02-16 08:53:31 |
|
What if you know 100,000 people. | by Jeff_UK | 2007-02-16 08:59:03 |
|
If it was part of my business model that I tracked | by hadji | 2007-02-16 09:16:33 |
|
If that's the case, how effective would your | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 09:28:07 |
|
If I sent the notification, I've fulfilled my | by hadji | 2007-02-16 09:33:19 |
|
You said it! | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 10:06:42 |
|
I am not introducing the ability | by hadji | 2007-02-16 11:12:30 |
|
And promptly go bankrupt for paying | by jayfarm | 2007-02-16 11:05:43 |
|
In a case like that, where death or injury are | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 09:04:33 |
|
I guess the question is how certain death is | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 08:40:58 |
|
I would say that some effort is always warranted. | by hadji | 2007-02-16 08:44:09 |
|
The only way it *would* be their problem... | by jdelphiki | 2007-02-16 09:02:34 |
|
There was no current recall on the product | by kc5sdy | 2007-02-16 08:24:15 |
|
I misread to an extent. | by kc5sdy | 2007-02-16 08:30:47 |
|
Guilty for some negligence. | by vectorz | 2007-02-16 08:34:06 |
|
As sympathetic to Joan as I would be... | by SnappingTurtle | 2007-02-16 08:34:34 |
|
Notification isn't the reseller's responsibility | by andyz | 2007-02-16 08:48:47 |
|
I agree, however... | by VivianC | 2007-02-16 08:53:59 |
|
Sounds like an extension of... | by SlyW | 2007-02-16 08:37:44 |
|
I'd doubt he would win agains BuySmart | by basher20 | 2007-02-16 08:39:16 |
|
Failure to render assistance. | by moddermonster | 2007-02-16 08:40:11 |
|
If you follow this reasoning, | by vdp | 2007-02-16 11:53:37 |
|
'Joan' should already know | by hyzenthlay | 2007-02-16 09:06:30 |
|
Not a Lawyer but | by wabbit65 | 2007-02-16 16:39:58 |
|
It would depend on the nature of the recall. | by AndyA | 2007-02-16 09:09:33 |
|
Using one's personal information... | by jdelphiki | 2007-02-16 09:10:24 |
|
Not enough information. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-02-16 09:29:18 |
|
Does not apply. And that's good it's this way. | by Qcumber-some | 2007-02-16 09:29:49 |
|
Objection. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-02-16 09:50:22 |
|
Terms and Conditions signed at time of card issue | by Rattler | 2007-02-16 10:13:25 |
|
What if none were signed? | by SnappingTurtle | 2007-02-16 10:25:11 |
|
I'm not sure but | by Rattler | 2007-02-16 10:36:56 |
|
Cannot != Not allowed. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-02-16 10:41:29 |
|
Correction - Cannot legally ;P (n/t) | by Rattler | 2007-02-16 11:59:58 |
|
Moot point. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-02-16 10:39:57 |
|
In general.... | by jsr | 2007-02-16 13:03:34 |