Timeline for How do free-speech protections in the United States apply in public to corporate misrepresentations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2019 at 3:10 | comment | added | phoog | @Pace compliance with regulations does not absolve someone from liability. | |
| Jun 10, 2019 at 22:04 | comment | added | D M | @EricTowers If you think the term prima facie is meaningless in the context of a truck losing rocks, then you're arguing with the law, which uses the term in situations more general than this. Under Wisconsin law, for example, a document purporting to be an insurance certificate is prima facie evidence of its own authenticity. That doesn't mean every such document is authentic; it just means you need some other evidence to rebut the assumption. | |
| Jun 9, 2019 at 17:20 | comment | added | Eric Towers | @DM : My point, exemplified by an absurdity, is that "prima facie" is meaningless without context. The same evidence can be prima facie in one context and not in another. Without context, the use of the term is unfounded. | |
| Jun 9, 2019 at 4:37 | comment | added | D M | @EricTowers Such a situation seems unlikely. He said it was prima facie evidence (which basically means "at first impression"), not that it was 100% true in every possible case. | |
| Jun 8, 2019 at 19:19 | comment | added | Eric Towers | @MasonWheeler : No. Just because, immediately after the crashing 737 Max 8 rolled the truck over and ignited an adjacent fuel truck which subsequently exploded, breaking open the bed of the gravel truck which sprayed gravel, breaking your windshield, does not mean the gravel was not properly secured. The rocks did "come free and go flying out of the truck bed", but this can in no way be traced to improperly securing them. | |
| Jun 8, 2019 at 16:24 | vote | accept | Bruce Kirkpatrick | ||
| Jun 7, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | Pace | @MasonWheeler I might have misunderstood. I thought "properly secure" meant "comply with all regulations" and not "secure in such a way that no rock could leave the truck, regardless of conditions". Most regulations boil down to "throw a tarp on it" which greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, loose rocks. Also, all large trucks are more likely to throw up rocks that were already on the highway due to their design. I truly appreciate these warning stickers as a reminder to back off and don't see them merely as a way to avoid liability. | |
| S Jun 7, 2019 at 17:29 | history | suggested | Malady | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling fix.
|
| Jun 7, 2019 at 16:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 7, 2019 at 17:29 | |||||
| Jun 7, 2019 at 14:48 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @pace If rocks come free and go flying out of the truck bed, isn't that basically prima facie evidence that they weren't properly secured, as the whole point of securing them is to make sure that they can't do exactly that? | |
| Jun 7, 2019 at 6:53 | comment | added | Pace | Also, assuming #2 above is not satisfied (that is, they did properly secure the rocks) then they may not be liable or responsible in which case the sign is a valid warning. | |
| Jun 6, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "This is what also underlies those disclaimer signs "not responsible for theft from your auto"." That's different, as those tend to be purporting to modify an implicit contract (you give us money, we let you park in our parking lot, also we're not responsible for theft; waiving liability is a consideration given in exchange for parking in the parking lot). There is no contract, and the truck is not giving consideration. | |
| Jun 6, 2019 at 17:37 | comment | added | Putvi | If you incur damage, you incur damage. I know that sounds cold, but the truck is technically responsible for things flying out of it. | |
| Jun 6, 2019 at 16:53 | vote | accept | Bruce Kirkpatrick | ||
| Jun 6, 2019 at 17:21 | |||||
| Jun 6, 2019 at 16:53 | comment | added | Bruce Kirkpatrick | Excellent point regarding moral responsibility versus legal liability as implied by the sign. If the sign were legally binding, would you have a case against the company if the sign wasn't readable within 200 feet and you incurred damage at <200 feet (but still at an illegible distance)? I'm trying to wrap my head around "reasonableness" as a hypothetical here. | |
| Jun 6, 2019 at 16:47 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |