RE: clarity of terminology can save lives

[Samuel -dot- Beard -at- tdcj -dot- state -dot- tx -dot- us]

Hey All,

   I've been following this thread for a while now, and I feel that
something needs to be pointed out, if it hasn't already been considered by
some. Talk of not using an appropriate degree of caution, i.e., warning or
danger, seems to me to be taking a SERIOUS chance on the legal end of
things and smacks of irresponsible behavior on the part of companies that
would do this. That's not to say that it would stop SOME companies, but
that's another topic.
   What I'm talking about is the potential of a company being sued by
someone for not adequately labeling something as a serious hazard for fear
of putting off marketing types or scaring potential customers with the
appropriate warning. In this day and age, it just seems to me that any
company doing so would be opening themselves up to a MASSIVE lawsuit and
settlement.
   What does everyone else think about this? Am I right or just being
overly sensitive to the legal ramifications?

Sam Beard



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Buy or upgrade to RoboHelp X3 today and receive the WebHelp
Merge Module for FREE ($299 value). RoboHelp X3's all-new
features include conditional text, completely re-engineered
printed documentation output, Context-sensitive Help Toolkit,
single-source layouts, and more!
Order online today 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.