It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung action.
Most laws tend to frown upon traps. And the blame goes to the one who sets the trap, not the one who trips it, even if the victim was engaging in otherwise illegal actions.
As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly.
Not really related to the discussion at hand but I often wonder if that's the right way to make laws? "Intent is king" is the watchword of modern American jurisprudence but I ask you: If you killed 3 people, are they less dead if it was an accident? If people knew they would be punished for consequences instead of intent, would people be more careful about considering the consequences of their actions? Would that make for, just in general, a more observant, more considerate, more intelligent populace, with less collateral damage? By extension, might that result in more just/fair laws just in general?
I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.
Yes, that’s actually why tort reform is such a big topic in American jurisprudence. Because property owners are liable if a bunch of kids suffer injuries on their property by falling into a hole, almost regardless of intent. Yes even if it’s properly secured with fencing, in many jurisdictions the trespassers sue for damages and succeed often.
Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of tort liability.
To a lesser extent it’s true in Canada and the UK too I believe.
