Re:Amazon must remove toxic school supplies, kids’ jewelry f...
by sk5t on Friday May 10, 2019 @12:44AM
(#19875108)
Your intuition about the grocery store's liability may have some deficiencies. A victim of food poisoning from negligence could absolutely bring suit against both the store and the yogurt maker.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Amazon must remove toxic school supplies, kids’ jewelry f...
by ajdlinux on Friday May 10, 2019 @01:27AM
(#19875295)
Indeed in the Commonwealth, my (limited) understanding is that in those circumstances, liability had always been understood as being with the retailer, not the manufacturer, until the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932 established the idea of a duty of care owed by the manufacturer even though there was no direct contract between manufacturer and end consumer.
Re:Amazon must remove toxic school supplies, kids’ jewelry f...
by divbzero on Friday May 10, 2019 @02:01AM
(#19875428)
Thank you for sharing this. I wasn’t aware that this concept that manufacturers have duty of care to consumers — which is ingrained in my intuition — is actually a legal construct that evolved less than a century ago. [1][2]
[1]: http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/