Hacker News Reader

Comment by gameswithgo | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what solutions there are to these liability/blame problems. I have seen a similar case in Australia, where a parking barrier was an extreme danger as it cross over a biking path, and was hard to see until the last minute. It caused a crash that took a mans leg, and the legal proceedings took years. During that time the barrier remained in place, still a danger, because removing it would have admitted fault.

View on HN

I think it's different in the US. Post-incident efforts to repair usually aren't considered an admission of responsibility in US tort law. Social policy reason is to encourage repair of hazards, rather than reinforce the circumstance you note.

What was the result of the litigation? From a money perspective, it seemed like "admitting fault" would be far more reasonable, and I think in this sense executives tend to exaggerate effects of "admitting fault", because, in the end, they are betting that legal proceedings would nullify its effects, but as we are learning now, it's not the case at all. Public memory might be short, but it regenerates at alarming speeds if you continue down this path.

They might have not been contractually allowed to admit fault. Many insurance policies do not allow the insured to admit fault, or they forfeit the policy.

This type of term should be made illegal. No civil contract should be able to incite a party to knowingly withhold evidence that could save lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com