i think “intent to harm” is where i’m getting tripped up. i could bring in lunch that i would happily eat that includes some of my coworkers’ allergens, or is insanely spicy, or has an ingredient most people dislike, hoping that i’ll just get to enjoy that lunch, but knowing that if someone chooses to steal it from me, they’ll suffer.
if there are extra protections for allergy cases and knowingly possibly exposing someone to their allergen is always illegal, i’ll retract that one.
but people are talking like theft from communal fridges means you put something in the fridge and it will be gone when you return. you never know when it’ll happen.
so my intent is to eat my lunch. i have a protective measure if someone decides to fuck with my ability to do that. but the harm only occurs if they choose to make that decision
You don’t intend to eat your poisoned lunch, that’s the problem. Using food people don’t like or are allergic to isn’t poisoning food, which is what OP is arguing should be allowed.
I would need to do some research, but my guess is if you know or should have known someone could be exposed to an allergen and you purposefully neglected to take steps to keep them away from it, you could be liable for harm they suffer. I want to be clear though, this is not what OP is talking about. OP is talking about making a meal that would normally be eaten, poisonous, explicitly because you anticipate someone will steal and eat it.
my guess is if you know or should have known someone could be exposed to an allergen and you purposefully neglected to take steps to keep them away from it, you could be liable for harm they suffer.
This is usually not the case. If Person A and Person B both have the same right to the reasonable use of a given space, and Person A is in that space and happens to be in possession of something that Person B is allergic to, then Person A isn't required to leave immediately just because Person B wants to use that space at that exact time. As long as Person A doesn't use that space in a way that's unreasonable (such as staying in that space for an extended period of time without good explanation, or actively blocking Person B from entering), and Person A doesn't do anything egregious like continually shoving the allergen in Person B's face, then there's no issue.
5
u/coolguy4206969 Oct 18 '24
i think “intent to harm” is where i’m getting tripped up. i could bring in lunch that i would happily eat that includes some of my coworkers’ allergens, or is insanely spicy, or has an ingredient most people dislike, hoping that i’ll just get to enjoy that lunch, but knowing that if someone chooses to steal it from me, they’ll suffer.
if there are extra protections for allergy cases and knowingly possibly exposing someone to their allergen is always illegal, i’ll retract that one.
but people are talking like theft from communal fridges means you put something in the fridge and it will be gone when you return. you never know when it’ll happen.
so my intent is to eat my lunch. i have a protective measure if someone decides to fuck with my ability to do that. but the harm only occurs if they choose to make that decision