Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: It takes two to tango
From: "Riad S. Wahby" <rsw () jfet org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:19:06 -0400
Chris Paget <ivegotta () tombom co uk> wrote:
Does V still have the right to sue R?
Let's put this a different way: Ford makes a car that seems to sell pretty well. Unfortunately, it has a fatal design flaw: if the car suffers a rear-end collision while it's in third gear during a rainstorm at night while the moon is waxing, the car explodes, killing its passengers. Consumer Reports discovers that this is the case and publishes a warning to its readers concerning this car. Ford is unable to reproduce the vulnerable configuration and ignores the warning, assuming it's a hoax. Two weeks later, a story breaks in the national news that a psychopath has taken it upon himself to rear-end all Ford cars on rainy moonlit nights. So far, five people have died. Who is responsible, Ford or Consumer Reports? Do you think Ford could successfully prosecute a lawsuit against Consumer Reports? Extra credit: if you said "no" to the second question, but think V should win a suit against R in Chris's hypothetical situation, please explain how the two situations are so substantially different as to result in completely opposite conclusions with regard to liability. -- Riad Wahby rsw () jfet org MIT VI-2/A 2002
Current thread:
- Re: It takes two to tango Riad S. Wahby (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Derek D. Martin (Jul 31)
- it's all about timing Florin Andrei (Jul 31)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] it's all about timing John Scimone (Aug 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: It takes two to tango Scott, Richard (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Greg A. Woods (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Chris Paget (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Tom Perrine (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Branson Matheson (Jul 31)
- Re: It takes two to tango Kyle R. Hofmann (Jul 31)
- RE: It takes two to tango Mark L. Jackson (Jul 31)
(Thread continues...)