Court case might change the laws of second-hand buying: Craigslist, eBay, others in jeopardy
- October 21st, 2007
- 6 Comments
I’m always scared of lawyers. We live in litigious times, and lawyers are the “new priesthood, baby!” They’re involved in everything. When I got my first “cease and desist” from Apple, we had a party. I’m not sure what that says about me or Apple, but it makes a point: when threatened, we rattle our sabers in the form of calling our lawyers.
What’s really frightening, however, is when crackpots bring suits that bear fruits. Take, for example, the case of Baily v. Lewis Farm, wherein a dude buys a truck on Criagslist, the truck causes an accident, and everyone who ever previously owned the truck is sued and might be liable for damages. And you just wanted to unload a finicky iPod, didn’t you?
In a nutshell, a company called May Trucking was in possession of a truck that had scored 500,000 miles. Later, it sold it to someone who owned it briefly and then sold it to Lewis Farms. While under the ownership of Lewis Farms, the axle broke. Wheels flew, and one of them hit the car of one Mr. Jerome Bailey. Bailey crashed that car, and then sued everyone who ever owned the truck for negligence. It was their truck, they should have cared for it properly, or so the argument goes.
It sounds like a trash lawsuit, but the judge in the case sided with Bailey. May Trucking argued that since it didn’t have ownership of the truck at the time of the accident, there’s no way it’s liable for what happened. Normally, that would be the end of it, but the court decided that negligence and ownership are not the same thing.
The case is still being argued, but the consequences, in theory, could echo to everyone who’s ever bought or sold on Craigslist or eBay or any other marketplace, online or off. Can I be held liable for a Zune I sold to someone who sold it to someone else? It could be. And that prospect frightens me, and it should frighten you.
rob (Who am I?)
10 months ago
umm…i wouldn’t sweat this one.
tiffany & co. v. ebay has a much bigger chance of having a negative impact.
Jon (Who am I?)
10 months ago
Matt… you now you have one more reason to think twice before buying your next Zune… that is a cool looking picture though.
Jon
Publius (Who am I?)
10 months ago
People who do not understand the law should not blog about it.
First, lawyers cannot bring cases without people willing to sue. so dont blame the lawyer. Second, if you were the Plaintiff and the law allowed you to recover large sum of money from multiple people, would you turn it down?
Third, you shoudl have linked to the Supreme Court opinion so that your readers could read the Supreme Court’s reasoning and decide for themselves. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S53916.htm
Under another reading of the case, someone cannot sell a product they know to be defective and which can cause harm and be free from liability. In other words you cannot sell a car that you failed to maintain and be free from liability if it harms someone.
Lesson: have the buyer sign an indemnification and release the seller from all liability.
John Eddy (Who am I?)
10 months ago
“First, lawyers cannot bring cases without people willing to sue. so dont blame the lawyer.”
I call shenanigans.
a) A lawyer can always say ‘No, that is frivolous’ or ‘That case has no legal bearing and I won’t take it’ or even simply ‘No, not interested.’
b) A lawyer can try to convince an individual that they *should* be willing to sue. I am not saying *every* lawyer does it, but, ‘ambulance chaser’ wasn’t a derogatory term that someone made up without merit. There were lawyers who followed ambulances and tried to convinced the injured to file suit.
“Second, if you were the Plaintiff and the law allowed you to recover large sum of money from multiple people, would you turn it down?”
Oh, actually, I’ll call shenanigans on this too. My doctor missed an extremely high blood sugar reading for almost a year, meaning I was living with untreated diabetes for that time. I could have easily sued for malpractice. I didn’t. I didn’t feel like putting the doctor through a suit for what could easily be a simple clerical mistake. I didn’t feel like having to find a new doctor.
Matt Hickey (Who am I?)
10 months ago
@ Publius: I agree, it’s not the lawyer’s fault. It wasn’t my intention to blame them, but another reading of my post reveals it’s not the lawyers but the way people yield them that I fear.
And decide what? The point is that this can change how ownership works, pure and simple. It’s not up for debate, it’s in the courts’ hands now.
Blake R (Who am I?)
10 months ago
This case has no merit and will be tossed before anything comes of it. It’s contrary to U.S. property laws, which are, in fact, some of our clearest laws.
The most recent owner is liable and, in the end, none of the previous owners will be held accountable.