What do you think is in general the proportion of times that such things when they happen count as technicalities rather than substantial proof of liability? Is the legal practice such that it can be a problem to even discuss about products in development, or is the law mostly reasonable and only goes after substantial problems?
? Is the legal practice such that it can be a problem to even discuss about products in development, or is the law mostly reasonable and only goes after substantial problems?
The answer there is if you can get it into evidence then you can get it in front of a jury. A big part of what lawyers do in litigation is argue about what gets into evidence and can get shown; all of that arguing costs time and money. I think a fair summary is if it’s plausibly relevant, the judge usually can’t/won’t exclude it.
What do you think is in general the proportion of times that such things when they happen count as technicalities rather than substantial proof of liability? Is the legal practice such that it can be a problem to even discuss about products in development, or is the law mostly reasonable and only goes after substantial problems?
It’s not just the law. It’s juries.
Yep, I meant law as the process of law.
The answer there is if you can get it into evidence then you can get it in front of a jury. A big part of what lawyers do in litigation is argue about what gets into evidence and can get shown; all of that arguing costs time and money. I think a fair summary is if it’s plausibly relevant, the judge usually can’t/won’t exclude it.