Is there liability for pure accidents? I am trying to determine the principled limits, if any, on when a person may be held financially liable for damage to another ("the victim"). I'm specifically interested in the case when damage is not reasonably foreseeable, and the person's mental state is good (that is, he is not trying to perform any bad act). As I understand it, if the victim has a strange and rare medical condition where he bleeds if touched even slightly, the person is still liable for damage inflicted on the victim, even if the consequences of brushing up against him could not have been known by the person. There are various defenses against liability, such as contribution on the victim's part to damage, or lack of factual causation. I assume that the victim did not contribute to his problem, and an act (including omission) of the person did cause the damage. Is it ever a defense to argue "it was just an accident"? I'm looking for general legal principles, not the willingness of a particular judge or jury to overlook causation of damage in a particular case. Relevant citations would be especially useful. To point to additional examples of the type that I have in mind, assume I have a tree on my property, which looks entirely healthy. There is undetectable insect damage to the inside of the tree which weakened it, and in a freak wind storm (winds of 60 mph suddenly arose, in an area that is not windy and prone to severe wind storms), the tree was blown down -- striking the neighbor's house, causing damage. Am I liable?
To win a negligence claim, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm, the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of that harm, and that harm was foreseeable. If they fail to prove any one of the limbs, the claim fails entirely. The eggshell skull principle which is what you are referring to goes to the amount of damage (and damages) that happens: not to if there is negligence in the first place. The foundation case in the modern law of negligence is Donoghue v Stevenson: the facts involved Mrs Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. A dead snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and she sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm of consumers. Lord Atkin define neighbour (people to whom a duty is owed) as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." The determination of the existence of a duty is a matter of law, not facts, therefore the decision rests with the judge not the jury. However, the law needs to consider the particular facts of the relationship including the particular risk of injury which eventuated, the defendant's relationship to that risk and the nature of the damage suffered although no one factor is itself sufficient. Of relevance to your hypothetical plaintiff is Bolton v Stone, the plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. The judges held that as it was not reasonably foreseeable that a cricket ball would be hit so far, the club was not negligent. In the words of Lord Normand, "It is not the law that precautions must be taken against every peril that can be foreseen by the timorous." In essence, Stone being hit by a cricket ball was, in your words, an accident even though it was caused by the cricket club. It is not reasonably foreseeable that brushing against a stranger in, say, a corridor would cause them harm. Therefore the act is not negligent even though, for this particular person, harm can be caused. In the absence of negligence, the eggshell skull principle is moot. However, in circumstances where the defendant has knowledge of the plaintiff's condition, brushing against them may be negligent depending on all the surrounding circumstances.
It may depend on the jurisdiction (although I can't readily think of one where this is not the case) but deliberately, recklessly or negligently putting a burning object next to someone else's property knowing that there is a real risk of it catching fire (and going ahead with it anyway) will almost definitely make one liable: especially if there is an ulterior motive. In england-and-wales This would be called arson - causing criminal damage by fire - an offence contrary to section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 Cross posted with the jurisdiction defining comment
You claim for the damage you suffered If you owe me $130 for unpaid wages, I sue for $130. If you wrote off my $130,000 car I sue for $130,000. If you burnt down my $130 million building, I sue for $130 million. If you did (in my estimate) $1.3 billion damage to my reputation I sue for $1.3 billion. Of course, I will have to prove that the damage was suffered - some damages are easier to prove than others. Whether the defendant can pay it is irrelevant to the suit. Of course, if there is a judgement that is more than the defendant’s net worth then any excess is “wasted”. At least commercially. However, commercial return is only one factor involved in deciding to launch a suit. Others include: seeking a precedent making a statement of principle vengeance
Is the contractor liable? It depends. Trespass and conversion would be the applicable torts. In some jurisdictions, those are strict liability torts, in others they are intentional torts. The contractor lacks intent, but did participate in the act. I haven't yet had a chance to check out California in particular. California appears to come close to a strict liability regime based upon the relevant jury instruction and related commentary. In a suit, would PersonB sue contractor for damages, who would then sue PersonA, or would PersonB sue PersonA directly for damages? Person B would sue both. The contractor for participating in the act, and Person A as the principal upon whose behalf the contractor is working as an agent, on a respondeat superior theory. Person A could have liability even if the contractor didn't, in this fact pattern. Would actions by PersonA be criminal? Probably, as a form of criminal trespass, criminal vandalism and possibly even burglary (sometimes defined as trespass with an intent to commit a further crime). I'd need to check California's criminal statute definitions to be sure of precisely what. But, in reality, PersonA would usually have a bona fide good faith belief that he had a legal right to do so, and in that case, it would not be a crime. Would actions by contractor be criminal? No. For criminal law purposes, the contractor lacked the requisite intent. The intent elements of the criminal trespass statute in California are here.
There have been cases in the UK where paying someone's legal bills was interpreted as joining their case. So when A with no money libels someone, and B with deep pockets pays A's lawyer, then B risks being held liable for damages if A gets convicted. So B should be very careful. Just giving you money is probably the safest. But attorney-client privilege is between attorney and client. I have been laid off twice with my company asking me to take an employment lawyer and paying for it. (Interestingly each time the bill was exactly the maximum amount the company was willing to pay :-) It would have been absurd if my company could demand information that is under attorney-client privilege just because they paid the bill. Why did two companies pay the lawyers bill? Because that way they ensure that the separation is without problems. The lawyer explained the settlement contract and what it meant exactly. They also checked that the contract didn’t contain anything unacceptable which the company would have fixed. So if I had tried to sue them later I would have no chance to win (but there was no reason to sue). Another reason not to sue was that the company offered I settlement that was very significantly more than was legally required, but if you sued them you would only get what you got in court - most likely less than you would get without suing. So basically they paid to make sure I would have no reason to sue them later.
Is there a way to accept civil liability without admitting a criminal violation? Are you allowed to tell the police, “I accept full responsibility for the accident, but I don’t wish to discuss what happened”? You can allow a default judgment as to liability to enter in a civil case (and then possibly even have a contested adversarial hearing on damages), or you can reach a settlement dismissing the case with prejudice in exchange for payment of a certain settlement without admission of liability. Indeed, this is what actually happens in about 90%+ of car accident cases that aren't resolved at trial or in a motion for summary judgment (something that is quite rare in a car accident case). Likewise, you can plea &quot;no contest&quot; or even being convicted following a trial of a traffic violation in connection with an accident, without the outcome of the traffic case having a binding effect on the outcome of a civil case, even though this seems contrary to the logic of how results in one case determine issues in other cases (called &quot;collateral estoppel&quot;). Basically, this rule has been enacted in most U.S. jurisdictions (usually by statute but in some rare cases by judicial decision), in order to prevent local traffic trial cases from turning into expensive high stakes battles that are really about liability for huge economic damages, in a traffic court process designed to efficiently deal with disputes in the tens to thousands of dollars at stake, rather than the tens of thousands to millions of dollars that are at stake in a personal injury case where there have been serious injuries. However, while the outcome and plea in a traffic case in not binding in a civil lawsuit involving a related accident, any testimony given under oath in one case can be used in the other case in almost all circumstances.
This is a context where you need to lawyer up. There are two issues, his share of the costs, and his permission to construct in part on his property. You mother has the same rights, so she likewise can refuse to sign off on his scheme (the lawyers negotiate a resolution). Assuming both parties are insured and (to make it more complex) have different insurance companies, the companies limit how much they will contribute for their part of the damage. Normally, you find a contractor who will do it for a given price, let's say $10,000, and the parties split the cost. Both parties have an interest in the choice of contractor because of cost issues, and quality of product and service (though the insurance company cares about the cost). If one of the parties is a contractor, they too can legitimately submit a bid, and then the parties can decide which is the best bid. It is not fraud if a contractor, who is an insured, submits a bid and makes a profit on the job. It would be fraud if that party withheld material facts from an insurance company. In the context of massive disaster insurance claims, the insurance companies may not perform a rigorous investigation (e.g. may not ask for multiple bids). It would then be a material fact that one of the insureds stood to profit from this arrangement, so the insurance companies would likely wish to see evidence that the costs were not unreasonably inflated. If the neighbors bid is in line with industry standard (and the insurance companies know who the contractor is), there is nothing fishy about the arrangement. This assumes that both parties are being cooperative with each other. When that is not the case, lawyers are good at getting cooperation (not letting the other party push their client around).
Sources of Liability Liability can come from: Statute law Contract law Common law Statute Law There may be (almost certainly are) laws in the jurisdiction where Joes Cheap Carnival are operating relating to Work Health and Safety. In general, these laws will impose a non-delegable duty (i.e. one you cant get out of) to comply with certain minimum standards. If operating your software as instructed with reasonable assumptions gives results that lead to an unsafe design then you would be liable in both cases. Contract Law If you are selling this software then you can limit your liability in any way you like providing that the limitation is not unlawful. For example, under Australian Consumer Law (which covers B2B transactions up to AUD$40,000 - how much are you selling for?) you have a non-excludable warranty that the software is fit-for-purpose; so, again, if operating your software as instructed with reasonable assumptions gives results that lead to an unsafe design then you would be liable in both cases. Common Law Only parties to a contract can take action under a contract; anyone you owe a duty of care to can sue your for negligence. A person injured by a machine your software helped design need to demonstrate: You had a duty of care; it would be hard to argue you didn't, You breached that duty; the software was not "fit-for-purpose", There was a factual cause in a "cause and effect" sense; 'but for' your software there would have been no loss, There was a legal (proximate) cause; you may be able to raise something here, if your software was used incorrectly by an engineer, your breach may be too distant Harm; the person must suffer real loss. The only plausible advantage of making your software open source is that you are showing a greater amount of care by allowing your algorithms to be sort-of peer reviewed. This is not a legal shield I would really like to depend on. TL;DR Nothing can stop someone suing you - if they want to sue you they can sue you. Your best defence to a lawsuit is to demonstrate that you did everything a reasonable person could do without the benefit of hindsight Do you really think publishing your code is "everything a reasonable person could do"? You would be far better off: Taking out professional indemnity insurance Validating you algorithms thoroughly Engaging an independent third-party to validate your algorithms Developing proper and thorough testing procedure for your software Testing it in-house Engaging an independent third-party to test it Thoroughly documenting your software including all the assumptions along with the domains where they are valid and invalid.