Originally Posted By: scafool
<snip>
US cellular is not charging for any false alarm calls to 911. Spot is charging for them. That changes everything and because it indicates they are aware of the problem and the fact they have attempted to prevent being effected by it by levying their own fines makes them responsible for it under due diligence requirements.
Not only that, by deciding to determine for themselves after the call has been made whether the call was abuse or negligence, and charging a fee if it was they have assumed responsibility for the validity of the call.
This also brings in the idea that they knowingly are creating a public nuisance.
The legalese in their contract to avoid liability only serves to show the problem was foreseeable and that they themselves considered it foreseeable.

Ben, this is not about morality or reasonableness. It is about American justice and who gets to pay to play.

Here is an excerpt from a Judges comments regarding the attempt to sue ICI for supplying the fertilizer used by the Oklahoma City bomber.
The lawsuit failed but not for the reasons you might expect.


There are so many things askew here, I don't know where to begin. First off, subsequent remedial measures are not admissible in a tort action to prove the alleged negligent act. If someone sues a grocery store saying the floor was slick and the grocery store puts down a rubber mat where someone slipped, that is not admissible in evidence to prove the floor was slick.

Secondly, providing for contingencies in a contract with a subscriber or anyone else for that matter is simply attributing the risk of loss and an attempt to potentially liquidate damages. Anticipating the potential breach or negligence of a contracting party does not make such acts foreseeable by the party who shifts the risk of loss.

The case citation you quoted appears to stand for a long- established legal principal that the manufacturer of a product is not responsible for its misuse unless such misuse is reasonably foreseeable. That would rarely be the case applying was is commonly called the objective reasonable person standard. And a manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the intentional or criminal misuse of their product by others. All the class action lawyers have tried that against the gun manufacturers and failed.

I am saddened that our society has apparently abandoned the concept of personal responsibility in favor of the scapegoat tactic of "going after the money". It has hurt the US on the global market and will continue to the plague of small and large businesses alike until there are consequences to filing a frivolous lawsuit.