IANAL, I expect it would depend on how you represented them and any negligence or malicious intent.
You certainly cant hand out poison apples for free without liability.
You certainly cant hand out poison apples for free without liability.
What you said is true, if there's negligence or malicious intent you're generally liable. In tort. (Edit: also criminally liable as well but that's far off topic)
However, whether you sold it or gave it out for free does matter, because for sales of goods, there's also contract law involved, there's usually additional implied warranties about the product being "merchantable" (you see this word in OSS disclaimers as well), and generally you can't disclaim your liability if you sold the product for money.
If there's no money and no other considerations involved when you give away the apple, then there's no contract, so only the tort part applies.
Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time.
Again, IANAL and not legal advice.
New word for me.
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others
>Generally the idea of holding the seller of a product liable for harms caused by the product is that the law (or society at large) don't like businesses profiting from selling stuff yet shifting risks to the consumer at the same time.l
I think it is more about the law attempting to mirror social expectations than having high-minded objectives itself.