> Let say that I, as an individual, report my car stolen when I’ve actually lent it to someone, and then I do it again, and again, and dozens more times, resulting in false arrests and jail time for law-abiding citizens.
Isn't the legal concept here 'mens rea' 'a guilty mind'. In your case from the way you describe this you know you are doing what you are doing. The argument would be that in order for a company (or individual) to be liable the same way (if there is even that or a similar concept for a corporation) they would have to have a reasonable knowledge that something like this was happening and that they could prevent it given the large scope of rentals that they do. I don't think it's actually reasonable to expect that in millions of transactions everything can and will go perfect. It's simply not the same standard as for an individual that has much fuller control of the transaction.
You said after all 'report my car stolen when I've actually lent it to someone and then do it again and again'. So you know you had 'lent it to someone'.
Equivalent would be if you could prove that the branch manager did not simply make a mistake and not put the right paperwork in but that he knowingly called the police when he knew the car was lent out. In one case it's a mistake (or shoddy work) in the other (as in your example) it's intentional.
I’m sure it was a mistake. But after a couple of times, such mistakes graduate from “oops” to negligence. Why is Hertz not checking their records more thoroughly before reporting a car stolen? After the first dozen false arrests, why are they not poring over all of their camera footage and paperwork and interviewing every employee from the site where it was supposedly stolen before they report it to the police?
> But after a couple of times, such mistakes graduate from “oops” to negligence.
Once again I think when you are dealing with a very large number of transactions there will simply always be screwups. To insure zero defects would raise the cost of the good or service to an unacceptable level. It's bad but my opinion is it's not criminal.
What's interesting though is that the tech business (and software in particular) is probably the most vocal (say here on HN) when mistakes happen in some other business (or a software business that is not theres) but at the same time for what they do (their own product or service) they regularly turn out non perfect products and experiences that regularly annoy, aggravate and create problems for users. Now none of this gets people picked up by the police but who says that that in particular is the gold standard of 'bad thing to happen to someone'. I wouldn't want to be picked up by the police obviously but then again some companies crappy software can actually create much greater aggravation and harm than that police event.
Your argument applies equally well to the general population. If I lend my car to a friend and then get him arrested by falsely reporting it stolen, do you think the judge will listen to me when I say that it’s a big country and it’s not reasonable to expect a zero defect rate?
Filing a false police report is criminal, literally. Writing bad software is not.
The root of my complaint is the massive inequity in treatment between individuals and large companies. If you want to argue that companies should be punished for making crappy software or that private citizens should get a pass when committing crimes, go for it, but that’s not quite what I’m talking about. The issue isn’t merely that Hertz gets away with this, it’s that they get away with it where you and I would not.
Isn't the legal concept here 'mens rea' 'a guilty mind'. In your case from the way you describe this you know you are doing what you are doing. The argument would be that in order for a company (or individual) to be liable the same way (if there is even that or a similar concept for a corporation) they would have to have a reasonable knowledge that something like this was happening and that they could prevent it given the large scope of rentals that they do. I don't think it's actually reasonable to expect that in millions of transactions everything can and will go perfect. It's simply not the same standard as for an individual that has much fuller control of the transaction.
You said after all 'report my car stolen when I've actually lent it to someone and then do it again and again'. So you know you had 'lent it to someone'.
Equivalent would be if you could prove that the branch manager did not simply make a mistake and not put the right paperwork in but that he knowingly called the police when he knew the car was lent out. In one case it's a mistake (or shoddy work) in the other (as in your example) it's intentional.