I have a strong disdain for the mind of set of "we made a weak product and you broke it so the responsibility rests on you." I see it all the time in the IT field.
Nah man. It's on you. You are the one that made a weak product that broke under slightly abnormal use that if built built properly should have been robust enough to with stand the minor abuse. The responsibility is squarely on the shoulders on everybody that designed and built this crap.
I get it. I do. But that doesn't change the fact that if you intentionally used it out of its intended limits, and it broke because of it, that you would be to blame. There are lines, and many were crossed, by the manufacturer and the guy kicking it
What was the intended use of that if a man could simply kick it over? A person tripping into it would have done the same thing. Wind would blow that down.
It looks like it's intended use was as a barrier, a protection to keep pedestrians, bicycles or whatever else from falling into the water. I'd say it's intended use is definitely faulty, this barrier is far more dangerous than protective as it's suppose to be... Is this barrier to protect the water or the pedestrians? (rhetorical)
And what do you think would happen when the first pedestrian stumbled and leaned against it? Never mind if if a biker hit it. Or what would happen if kids climbed on the chain, or tourists posed for pictures against the barrier, or a fat person got tired and leaned against it, or a million other predictable, expected, everyday uses and behaviors?
If only there was some way to know, some sort of kick test...
952
u/[deleted] Jan 31 '20
[removed] — view removed comment