A simple example would be adding a feature that collects user information before you update the EULA to tell people that you're collecting their information.
The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.
This seems to be an urban myth that gets often repeated but I've never actually seen a concrete example. Could someone point me to an example of someone suing a property owner because of an injury received in the commission of a crime?
Wasn't it from that old Jim Carrey film Liar Liar?
Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?
The justification for a lot of these frivolous injury lawsuits are often very similar. The person suing has thousands or tens of thousands of medical debt. They could spend years paying it off or they could look like a moron in the hopes of a settlement that will pay off the debt or at least make a dent in it.
Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a painted over skylight while stealing (or redirecting to play basketball) a spotlight off the roof. Because of the fall he became a quadriplegic, he didn't really have much to lose suing the school district because, well, his life as he knew it was over. He had a lifetime of medical bills to pay and no way to earn an income.
There are definitely plenty of scam artists or leeches or whatever you want to call them abusing the legal system because it's easier than getting a real job, but don't underestimate the people backed into a corner by debt.
> I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won
There are general principles of responsibility of property owners for dangerous conditions on the property that apply even when the harm done by them is done to trespassers (and regardless of the purpose of the trespass.) IIRC, these are largely common law principles, and older than the US.
Of course, they don't relieve any criminal liability for crimes committed by the trespasser on the property, or any civil liability for torts committed on the property, but if you are already on the hook for those and can't try to claim that you weren't the intruder, there's no reason not to try to pursue any colorable claim you have.
So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions; but if an intruder breaks into your house and trips on your loose stair carpet, he can sue for his resulting injuries?
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
But, even so...
> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions
Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unlawful act, and thus the relief from otherwise applicable legal liability attached as a result of self-defense doesn't apply to it.
> In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around.
You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.
> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.
Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.
> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.
Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).
So you're saying that a loose carpet on stairs would be illegal (i.e. a booby trap of sorts), but a security system where I can hit an alarm button and then it'll deploy a loose carpet onto the stairs, would be just fine?
> but a security system where I can hit an alarm button and then it'll deploy a loose carpet onto the stairs, would be just fine?
It may or may not be "just fine" in general (e.g., it might violate building codes, etc.), but if you deliberately used it in a condition where you were legally authorized to use deadly force in self defense, you probably wouldn't be liable for that particular use.
Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police.
Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
In a related note, if you have a dog, you need a sign to warn burglers about it , as you have to safeguard anyone in your house, including burglars. If the sign talks about a dangerous dog, it means you knew the dog was dangerous and have a higher responsibility for injuries.
As far as I understand it (IANAL), the legal theory is that breaking in and failing to safeguard the burglar are 2 unrelated crimes, which each deserve their own punishment/damages.
>Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in.
I doubt that. Just because a police officer says sth doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps people sued in the past but lost in court.
Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house.
Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar.
It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign.
Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?
Burglars suing the owner also happened to France, which has a very crime friendly legislation.
For instance if you break in a house while the owner is on holidays, and stay a few days, not only the owner would have to go to court for years to kick you out, but the owner is not even legally permitted to enter his own house until after the execution of the eviction, after all appeals have been exhausted.
This may be about squatting, rather than a burglar. A squatter can take occupation of an abandoned building if they do not break in, so if a door is open or something like that. Usually they break a window and replace it immediately to be able to support their claim.
They don't care that much about the pirated version doing things not mentioned in the EULA, they care about not being rushed to ship a legit version (that has not yet a ready EULA) because it has to get released in order to limit the spread of the pirated version or for any other reason.
The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.