not legal advice - That is probably fine. As long as it is not reasonably foreseeable to cause bodily harm or emotional distress. Better off not testing that line though.
Highly unlikely. Emotional distress needs to rise to a very high level before it is something you’re likely to win in court.
The test usually involves something like showing that the person is SO emotionally distressed that they cannot function normally like they used to. Like can’t sleep, work, etc.
So not really a risk of that happening from the glitter/stink bomb stuff. MAYBE if the stink bomb caused like a crazy allergic reaction or
something, but even then you’d have to prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that the allergic reaction would occur and that Marc knew/or should have known that it was likely to happen. At that point, it would honestly make more sense to sue the stink bomb manufacturer for strict product liability. Instead of Marc Rober.
Why is the law so protective for potential burglars?
I get not wanting to put all the law into people's hands because yes, life-changing injuries and/or death could happen to the perpetrator (or innocent passers-by) but sometimes it feels like burglars are suing for industrial injury in the workplace or something ha.
190
u/SlowDownHotSauce 7d ago
not legal advice - That is probably fine. As long as it is not reasonably foreseeable to cause bodily harm or emotional distress. Better off not testing that line though.