"It wouldn't hurt" Legality of this?

Got an e-mail advisory from ebay today about some items I have bids on, and they included the following statement in their closing remarks:

“If you have not already done so today, it would not hurt to mention eBay to your
friends!”

What if I were to tell my friend Tony about ebay and he then proceeded to beat the tee-total shit outta me? Could I sue ebay?

:slight_smile:
Thanks,

Quas

It wouldn’t hurt to ask a lawyer.

sorry couldn’t help myself.

Yeah, like I go around mentioning eBay to my friends each day.

The internet is so new we really don’t have a good set of precedents for this. Without this body of previous rulings to fall back upon it is difficult to say. Your mission is now to mention ebay to your friends until they beat you up and then proceed with the case. Ideally you should move to Delaware because many corporations use Delaware for incorporating because of the large body of precedents dealing with corporate law. My having this happen in Delaware we get the widest application of the decision.

By having this happen in Delaware

It must be this code red stuff making the internet unreliable.

No.

Sure! You’d be in trouble for giving the judge an aneurism from laughing at you, though.

Well, not until you got his fee anyway…

You could sue Ebay. You could sue me. You could sue anybody. That doesn’t mean that you have a good cause of action. I really doubt you would get a favorable judgment against Ebay. So they said it wouldn’t hurt. That was just a figure of speech and somebody punching you out was not reasonably foreseen.

… for the reply. It was a “tongue-in-cheek” question, which is why I used the smiling emoticon, but it was also my “comment” as it were, on the phrasing of the ad.

Think of it this way: “Use B*N roll-on deodorant! It wouldn’t hurt, and it’ll make your underarms smell really great!”

Okay, I admit it: it’s a reach, but what if someone got really sick from using this deodorant?

Yup. It’s just a figure of speech, I agree, but in today’s age of frivolous lawsuits, don’t you think it possible that someone might use this phrase as a means of getting legal retribution?

Again, let me reiterate that this was meant in fun, but also as “food for thought”. People have sued for less, and successfully.

Okay fellow English majors, you’re up! How would you have phrased it?

Thanks

Quasi

Maybe eBay should have included the usual disclaimer:

If you have not already done so today, please mention eBay to your friends! Please note that eBay accepts no responsibility whatsoever in the event that you or any friend or person whatsoever is harmed in any way howsoever by the transmission, intentional or not, of said message, and disclaims all liability for any losses or damage which may be sustained by any person as a result thereof.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

I believe that in most states, the technical answer is that the intervening criminal acts of a third party become the sole proximate cause of the injury, and therefore, even if the act was somehow foreseeable, E*Bay would still not be liable.

How was THAT for killing a fun question? :slight_smile:

I’m not sure about that. Keep in mind that I don’t practice law. (I’m already perfect.) But IIRC, from my law school days of 35 years ago, if the intervening act was foreseeable, negligence may still lie.

IANAL. I don’t think the “it wouldn’t hurt” line would make one bit of difference. If the product was used correctly, someone was injured, and a reasonable person could have forseen the danger, then the maker could be held liable regardless of the use of the phrase.

Actually, I understand product liability to use the standard of strict liability, where the company would still be liable even if it had done everything possible to prevent anyone from getting hurt by their product.

Of course, IANAL, nor do I have any sort of legal training.

Absolue liability arises when one manufactures an inherently dangerous product and puts it in the stream of commerce. Deodorant is not inherently dangerous.

I don’t know what Jeff means by “a reasonable person could have foreseen the danger.” Is he referring to the manufacturer, which could have reasonably foreseen the danger? How? Did it have prior knowledge of some defect in its product? Or did the user of the deodorant have an unusal sensitivity to an ingredient in the product? Was there a possible allergen in it which the company did not disclose? Many more facts would have to be disclosed before an intelligent discussion on the mfr’s liability can be had.

Getting back to the “intervening force,” the scenario comes to mind of John doe tying up Mary Roe and putting her on the rrd tracks. No one can argue because there was an intervening force (the train) John Doe is exculpated.

[Dave Barry]Or at least send him some money.[/Dave Barry]

IANAL, but I am pretty sure you can sue anybody for anything. The question is, will the judge dismiss it out of hand, or let it proceed.

First thought that popped into my head was: this Tony guy doesn’t sound like such a good friend.

“Deodorant” … “it’s a reach” … That’s funny.

You mean like the Hooters employee in Florida who’s suing her boss for promising her a new Toyota but instead when she won the raffle, was given a “Toy Yoda” StarWars doll?

Quasi, like you, I’m an English major. But from that last run-on sentence of mine, I’d figure that I’m not the person you should be asking advice from.

Ask me again when I have my degree :slight_smile:

Shouldn’t that be: “Quasi, as you are, I also am an English major”? We’re not talking similes here.

Shouldn’t “I’d” be “I”? You not only “would figure” but did figure. Also, shouldn’t that be “I’m not the person you should be asking for advice”? I’m not even going to mention beginning a sentence with a conjunction and ending it with a preposition since I know that’s acceptable. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Daniel *
**

Nah. Tony’s my best Bud and he lurks here from time to time. I thought he might get a kick out of seeing his name mentioned in this scenario.

But all that aside, I still think that damn eBay phrase could have been worded differently and not just because of the legality.

I also got a kick out of y’all goin’ on at each other about your grammar! :slight_smile: Just goes to show what a classy MB this is!

Thanks

Quas