legal Liability of books

[giladsof]

A person buys a vocabulary book for 10 bucks. The book is basically a list of translated words between English and French.

Now let's say this book contains some mistakes- some words are translated incorrectly.

Scenario one: out of 1000 words there are 5 mistakes.
Scenario two: out of 1000 words there are 300 mistakes.

Can this person sue the company that created the vocabulary book?
Does the amount of mistakes even matter?
If the person does sue the company how much money could he possibly get (the book cost only $10 but he could tell some sad story about losing money because of these mistakes)
If the book had some warning in small letters somewhere unnoticeable: "we are not responsible for the accuracy of the translation" or something of the sort, would that even matter?

 

[FlyingRon]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

No you can not sue them no matter how many mistakes there are.

 

[PaulMass]

A person buys a vocabulary book for 10 bucks. The book is basically a list of translated words between English and French.

Now let's say this book contains some mistakes- some words are translated incorrectly.

Scenario one: out of 1000 words there are 5 mistakes.
Scenario two: out of 1000 words there are 300 mistakes.

Can this person sue the company that created the vocabulary book?
Does the amount of mistakes even matter?
If the person does sue the company how much money could he possibly get (the book cost only $10 but he could tell some sad story about losing money because of these mistakes)
If the book had some warning in small letters somewhere unnoticeable: "we are not responsible for the accuracy of the translation" or something of the sort, would that even matter?

His cause of action would depend of the type of harm caused and how foreseeable that harm was to the publisher.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, US law only.

 

[davew128]

I think this would be an....open and shut case.

 

[Zigner]

I think this would be an....open and shut case.

I see what you did there.

 

[TheGeekess]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

No you can not sue them no matter how many mistakes there are.

Watch out. You know what can happen around here quoting the Monty.

 

[quincy]

A person buys a vocabulary book for 10 bucks. The book is basically a list of translated words between English and French.

Now let's say this book contains some mistakes- some words are translated incorrectly.

Scenario one: out of 1000 words there are 5 mistakes.
Scenario two: out of 1000 words there are 300 mistakes.

Can this person sue the company that created the vocabulary book?
Does the amount of mistakes even matter?
If the person does sue the company how much money could he possibly get (the book cost only $10 but he could tell some sad story about losing money because of these mistakes)
If the book had some warning in small letters somewhere unnoticeable: "we are not responsible for the accuracy of the translation" or something of the sort, would that even matter?

In the US, I know of some publishers of science books that have paid in the past any person who finds a mistake in the text. But I cannot imagine a mistake in a vocabulary book leading to the type of harm that would cause the book to be labeled a "dangerous product" or that could justify an award of damages. An error in a recipe book or an error in a how-to book (i.e., how to install an electrical socket, how to make a bomb), on the other hand, could potentially support a lawsuit.

There have been a couple of times when an error in publishing has caused a run of books to be recalled, with an offer of refunds to the purchasers of the defective books (e.g., once when two Chapter Threes were printed but no Chapter Two, and once when some chapters were published upside down, and once I think when a recipe book included the wrong ingredient).

Bad translations, though? I am thinking the chances of a vocabulary book's bad translations leading to a successful lawsuit against the author and/or the publisher would be slim.

 

[PaulMass]

Bad translations, though? I am thinking the chances of a vocabulary book's bad translations leading to a successful lawsuit against the author and/or the publisher would be slim.

I agree with the slim chances, but here goes.

Dictionary incorrectly puts in "rat poison" for translation of "candy".

Person visiting store wants candy and asks for rat poison, based on translation.

Person eats rat poison (he can't read the warning labels and thinks skull and crossbones means appropriate for Halloween).

 

[LdiJ]

I agree with the slim chances, but here goes.

Dictionary incorrectly puts in "rat poison" for translation of "candy".

Person visiting store wants candy and asks for rat poison, based on translation.

Person eats rat poison (he can't read the warning labels and thinks skull and crossbones means appropriate for Halloween).

Another potential scenario...

The book causes a sales rep to make a faux pas so terrible that it costs them an account and they lost their job...

Most of the time a mistake in a translation is going to be laughed off, particularly if the other party is aware that someone is using a phrase book. I speak several other languages and have made some embarrassing mistakes in my lifetime. My ex once used an incredibly offensive word towards women that he understood to be a mildly slangy term of endearment...LOL. It was the "C" word. Luckily the friend of mine that he addressed with that word figured out immediately that he had no idea what he was saying and very calmly explained to him what he did wrong.

I myself used an expletive in Italian in front of my very conservative inlaws that I thought was more or less the equivalent of "idiot", when it actually meant something more similar to "fxxxker" Mistakes happen.

However, if a phrase book had an error so egregious that it really caused lots of damage to people, then it could be actionable. 99 times out of 100 however, an error is not going to rise to that level.

 

[quincy]

I agree with the slim chances, but here goes.

Dictionary incorrectly puts in "rat poison" for translation of "candy".

Person visiting store wants candy and asks for rat poison, based on translation.

Person eats rat poison (he can't read the warning labels and thinks skull and crossbones means appropriate for Halloween).

Well, hypothetically, in the very unlikely case that an error of that sort leads to harm of that sort, a case could potentially be fashioned.

Although I imagine there are some that could think the skull and crossbones sign is a Halloween symbol and not the universally-known symbol for poison, it could probably be argued that someone who cannot read warning labels should not think they can understand dictionary translations. It could be possible to show that harm was not caused by a faulty translation but by a faulty human.

I understand that many warning labels are designed for those stupid enough to ingest skull-and-crossbones labeled rat poison, though, so who knows what would happen.

That said, unless giladsof has mistakenly ingested rat poison, I think it is pretty safe to say that giladsof does not have a lawsuit worth considering. If his $10 dictionary has translation errors, he should probably spring for a $20 one next time.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

What quincy is referring to is the publishers policy of paying for errors pointed out so they can correct them in subsequent editions. I'm sure all us old folks remember doing Algebra problems for homework and spending 2 hours trying to figure out how they came to the answer in the back of the book, then going to class and the teacher saying it was a book error.

 

[quincy]

What quincy is referring to is the publishers policy of paying for errors pointed out so they can correct them in subsequent editions. I'm sure all us old folks remember doing Algebra problems for homework and spending 2 hours trying to figure out how they came to the answer in the back of the book, then going to class and the teacher saying it was a book error.

Yup.

I remember trying to convince a teacher in 7th grade that a science book was in error but she didn't believe me ("text books don't lie"). Another science teacher finally had to tell her I was right. The error had something to do with tides, if I remember correctly.