TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Not always so, Archie ... legal outcomes are often based on what a
reasonable person would have believed was a safe activity with the
information provided at the time. Therefore, if someone had been clearly
made aware of possible associated hazards with the misuse of a product, then
that person would be able to make an informed decision whether to heed the
warnings, or accept the risks. Should the user choose to ignore the written
advice, that individual may have wavered any possible rights to sue for
personal damages.
A good example would be using a hairdryer - let's say, someone believed it
must be safe to dry their hair in the bathtub, based on the sole fact that a
hairdryer can safely dry wet hair. Now let's presume a manufacture also
decided this was such a silly act, it required no such warnings. Why
shouldn't the injured party win a lawsuit on the grounds it was presumed a
safe activity, based on the manufacture's lack of any warning to counter
this belief? Wouldn't a 'reasonable person' presume that if a hairdryer can
be used in a bathroom, it must be presumed water-proof (especially since at
one time, electrical outlets could be legally installed on the far wall of a
shower)?
This is why companies post 'silly' warnings - to protect themselves from
people who would otherwise be convinced that, if there is no posted warning,
there must be a limited risk (or no risk) to certain obviously hazardous
activities. In addition, lots of these 'silly' warnings are based on
'actual' events that have resulted in previous personal injury, or damage to
property. There also may be a moral responsibility as well, for a
manufacture to warn a user that a product is unsafe if used in a careless
situation (i.e. that the manufacture's hair-dryer is not shock-proof, even
though it's used on wet hair). Therefore, by not warning a user of
un-associated potential dangers, the manufacture opens up his liability to a
customer's unintentional misuse, where that customer could sue on the basis
of not being forewarned.
Bruce
Archimede Ziviello wrote:
> No doubt a plantiff's attorney will find your own reference to
> your warnings
> work as "silly" and use it to the clients advantage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Buy ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 6.0, the most powerful SINGLE SOURCE HELP
AUTHORING TOOL for MS Word. SAVE $100 on the full version and $50 on the
upgrade. Offer ends 10/31/2002 (code: DTH102250). http://www.componentone.com/d2hlist1002
All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
