Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> In the physical world, it seems like when an tool/device/instrument causes harm (or is used to cause harm), we assign blame to either the user of the tool or its creator.

Software executes in the physical world, and is generally not exempt from existing liability rules, and actually (especially with commercial products) blame in traditional liability is non-exclusive and much broader than “either the maker or the user”.

E.g., for a harms caused by a defective automobile it can simultaneously covered by a duty of the owner to maintain it it in safe operating condition that applies indepedently of any defects and liability for defective products which applies to every actor in the chain of commerce between the manufacturer and end user, not just the maker.

View on HN

If I park my car on a hill but forget to set the parking brake and it rolls down the hill and kills somebody, who is at fault? Me? The Manufacturer? Gravity?

Obviously you.

Not as obvious as you may think depending on your states laws for liability. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1...

That case had the owner performing an action they were led to believe would have prevented the car from rolling but potential defects prevented it from doing so.

Not a great fit.

If you forget to set the parking brake, you were negligent

If you set the brake but it didn't work, the car malfunctioned

From the link you sent,

> One of the questions herein was whether there was a defect in the automobile mechanism for locking the transmission gears when the automobile was in a parked position.

> (...)

> The parking lot sloped in that area, and he put the gearshift lever in "park lock," and went into the building.

> (...)

> In response to a hypothetical question, based upon assumed facts justified by and embodied in the evidence, Mr. Nass testified in substance that it was his opinion that the automobile rolled down the slope of the parking lot because the transmission internally was not in park-lock; that it was not in park-lock because the engine was "moving around"; and that the engine and shift console were not in proper synchronization because the motor mounts were not restraining the engine and were not holding the engine in position.

As I remember, you are also supposed to turn the wheels so that even if a car starts rolling, it won't be able to go staight.

My vehicle automatically sets the parking brake if it senses it is on a steeper slope so I never consciously make a decision to set it.

https://www.whatvan.co.uk/news/no-handbrake-van-driver-convi...

You.

You. Assuming that not having a brake that automatically sets is considered a product defect (it generally is not today, but one can imagine a situation in which it would be), you had bought the car new through normal channels, and your car had this condition as a result of manufacturing problem and not something you did after purchasing it, then under normal product liability law the manufacturer and every other entity in the chain of commerce between them and you would also be liable (and that mat start earlier than the manufacturer of the vehicle but also include the upstream part manufacturer and everyone between them and the vehicle manufacturer in the chain of commerce if the defect was in the manufacture of a part and not just the final vehicle.

But that liability doesn't reduce yours; you and all the entities in the chain of commerce can be “jointly and severally liable”, mean anyone who suffers injury can recover the full amount from any combination of you and those other parties.

Gravity is not legal person and cannot be at fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com