News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

Re:Amazon must remove toxic school supplies, kids’ jewelry f... by flukus on Friday May 10, 2019 @02:08AM (#19875454)
Does this let the retailer get off the hook? If so that seems like a terrible idea in a world where the manufacturer is likely to be international.
Re:Amazon must remove toxic school supplies, kids’ jewelry f... by divbzero on Friday May 10, 2019 @02:20AM (#19875497)
No, it doesn’t let the retailer off the hook. It just means the manufacturer can be liable depending on the circumstances.