TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Stupid users (was the "top this" thread) From:topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:52:48 -0600
> Your interpretation of the case is fully consistent with the law of torts, which is that governing topics such as this.
>
> I think it is not practically correct to think that "...she was prepared for discomfort if she spilled"--as a practical matter, people rarely think of such things consciously. However, the legal standard calls for what a reasonable person under the circumstances should have assumed--and this is very much consistent with that standard.
>
> Still, to do it as she did *was* stupid regardless of any theoretical or actual assumed risk.
>
> David
Dave, this is right along the lines of what my business-law professor (a
retired judge) taught: smart does not always equal reasonable, and stupid
does not always equal unreasonable.
For "stupid but reasonable", he used speeding. Speeding, from a legal and
financial viewpoint, is stupid. If you get caught, it can cost you a lot
of money. However, the fact that you were sppeding at the time of an
accident does not make your excessive speed unreasonable and, as such, an
indication of negligence. If you were doing 30mph in a 25mph posted school
zone, and you tagged some kid, your speed would probably be seen as
unreasonable. After all, you were speeding through an area with congested
traffic (busses and parents' cars) and children out near the street.
However, if you were doing 70mph on a 65mph highway (the same 5mph
violation), your speed would probably not be relevant if the other
vehicles present were traveling about the same speed. The "unreasonable"
action in this case would be the clown who suddenly changed lanes without
a turn signal.
On the "smart but unreasonable" side, he used resturant food that is
served too hot (this was several years before the McDonalds case, so it
would appear that this was/is a common problem). Serving food that is very
hot is "smart" when viewed from the standpoint of preventing food-borne
illness: the hotter the food is, the less microbrial growth can occur.
This is actually very reasonable when viewed from the resturant's point of
view. However, above a certain temperature, it becomes unreasonable for
two reasons. First, it can cause serious burns to the mouth and throat.
Second, the diner (especially if they are a child) may not be aware of the
potential for injury.
TW tie-in: There are a lot of factors to consider when trying to provide
information to another person or group. You must know your audience
because what seems perfectly reasonable and rational to you may well be
outside the experience/education of your audience.
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or view a live demo at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
