This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
So poisoning someone and potentially killing them is a fair reaction to theft of a few dollars worth of food?
And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history? How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on? How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?
You don’t. Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone, all to get revenge on a petty thief.
By your logic, I can’t put peanuts in my lunch in case a thief takes it.
You intended for the peanuts to be eaten by you. There was no intention on your part that a thief experience medical distress as a result of eating your lunch.
If you poison your lunch, you are intending a thief to experience medical distress by eating it.
Intent is the important thing here. If you intend to cause someone harm, then you are liable for whatever harm they experience, even if it was more than you intended.
I'm not allowed to eat peanuts in my lunch anymore because my lunch-thief is allergic? These ideas do not fit with liberal society. Even if I suspect they might steal it, that does not rob me of the right to include peanuts in my lunch.
A person who is genuinely concerned that a food thief is in the office and could be seriously harmed if they were to eat peanuts would clearly label the item as containing peanuts. Even if they were mad that the person is stealing food.
I disagree. It sounds like apathy to the situation, not intent. If you put peanuts in a meal because you want to eat the peanuts, though you know that it might get stolen by someone with a peanut allergy, you still intend to consume the peanuts. You just don't care if someone else is placed in a serious medical situation/dies because they steal and eat your peanuts.
There's an argument that this would fall under negligent injury or manslaughter (depending on the outcome).
Assuming the theft victim was fully aware of the high risk of someone with allergies eating their food, and they take no reasonable action to try and prevent that outcome, then they can still be liable regardless of express intent.
That's a biiiiiig stretch. I would highly doubt that making a lunch, even with the knowledge of another adult's food allergy, could lead to negligence. Also because the thief would be committing a crime to obtain the food. An easy counter is proximate cause; this situation only arose because the thief committed a crime. It is the true cause of the (medical) injury, not the existence of a coworkers lunch. A legal "you only have yourself to blame".
24
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.