[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='illennium']As a lawyer (not an ambulance chaser), I can tell you that TRU has a basic duty of care to its customers as well as a duty to inspect any equipment that it installs. This could be argued as a product liability claim, in which case the girl can sue anyone along the chain of distribution. If she sues TRU, they can indemnify Nintendo, the distributor of the machine, as well as the manufacturer, whoever that may be. This will no doubt settle.[/quote]
For what though? What is that "duty of care"? Does TRU have to put foam padding on every single hard thing in their store, out of the sheer potential that some idiot can fly into it?[/quote]
Sorry, I meant to say reasonable duty of care. One way to determine what is reasonable is to consider the gravity of harm as well as the probability of harm. If both are high, or if one is really high, then the duty kicks in.
The law is all about drawing lines. You may not agree with where a lot of the lines are drawn (I don't), but it's not a completely irrational process, and it does help to keep the rest of government and the private sector in check.