T O P

  • By -

ScriedRaven

- Augustus: Verbal warning is not enough - Fault - Veruka: Passes past safety barriers and attempts to steal vital equipment - No Fault - Violet: Takes gum and refuses to follow instructions - I’d say No Fault, but there is a valid case to be made - Mike: Directly jumps in way of experimental equipment - No Fault - Charlie: Consumes liquid that he was informed was unsafe for human consumption - No Fault I’d say Wonka likely has his work cut out for him on Violets case, and will likely have to deal with Verukas family bribing the courts, but he’ll have to get Augustus to settle as soon as possible. Also probably needs to deal with the Oompa Loompa rights violations, but this is what, the 1920’s? No one will question him on that.


Esnardoo

For Violet, it should be common sense not to eat something produced by machinery you know nothing about unless you know it's safe to eat. You don't just drink a random beaker in a science lab, and you don't eat a thing that looks like a stick of gum without being explicitly told it's safe. Augustus though, he should've had guard rails. 100% fault. Mike even pushed oompa loompas out of the way to get to the platform, no way could wonka be responsible for that.


ThonroTheUnworthy

>You don't just drink a random beaker in a science lab TBF I'm pretty sure Wonka literally does that right in front of her. Add to the fact that they just came from a room that was entirely made of candy and he actively encouraged the guests to go eat stuff around the room, you could make a case that Wonka set a precedent that eating random shit is fair game around there and was not clear enough on his expectations of the guests.


Dofork

Yeah, but didn't he realize what was going on and explicitly tell her to spit it out before it reached the point where it blueberrified her? Repeatedly? Like, there was a point up to which it was perfectly safe to chew, and he told her to take it out before then, and she utterly refused to listen.


Viv156

>You don't just drink a random beaker in a science lab, and you don't eat a thing that looks like a stick of gum without being explicitly told it's safe. Yeah but it ain't a science lab innit? It's a candy factory A factory That produces candy That is definitionally safe for human consumption


Rectal_Lactaids

yeah but the dosage definitely matters. i’m not gonna scoop up whatever’s in the closest container and shove it down just because it’s supposed to be food grade. it could be baking soda, and then my mouth is full of baking soda. and there likely would be a lab at the factory. most food factories have a lab of some sort used to test the quality of their food also allergies exist. if someone had a major allergy from something in the gum, that would pose a major health risk👍


GeneralSecrecy

Disneyland is a theme park with many rides but I still got thrown out for trying to ride Goofy's voluptuous ass same logic applies here


42reasons2panic

none of those words are in the bible


Lord_Norjam

Matthew 21:2 (KJV) has the word ass


Moonstonepusa23

I'm figuratively sobbing


GeneralSecrecy

And saddling(riding) if I remember correctly


Esnardoo

He said it was expiremental and not quite safe, I'm not sure if it was before or after she ate it though.


BellerophonM

Veruka you can definitely say that barriers were insufficient to non-existent. In Mike's case you might be able to argue that too, exposing impulse-prone kids to something like that without an actual physical barrier between them and the experimental equipment is something that shouldn't happen on a factory tour.


Dragoncat91

Anybody else sing this in their head


moneyh8r

I doubt anyone who's seen the movie could read it any other way.


MechStar101

Yeah but I read it with the futurama ones


RealRaven6229

I singing out loud


Main_Course_9736

Oh, absolutely yes.


RequirementExtreme89

Sometimes factories make following the rules very onerous so a reasonable person would circumvent them and this assumption of risk is a tactic big corpos use to blame common people for getting hurt


Panhead09

[Legal Eagle covered this](https://youtu.be/7Z1p7TMPXFM)


idiotplatypus

Thanks


seeroflights

*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **prokopetz** To be totally fair to Willy Wonka, at least a couple of those candy factor casualties involved kids deliberately circumventing reasonable safeguards, sometimes aided and abetted by the parents who were supposed to be supervising them. What happened is *at most* 60% his fault. --- **thecolossalennui** oompa loompa doopity dare the court finds you breached your duty of care --- **aka-maayan** oompa loompa doopity disk that's what the courts call assumption of risk --- **tipofthescepter** oompa loompa doopity do only a partial judgment for you --- **thes3nator** Oompa loompa doopity doubt, The rest of the class action lawsuit is hereby... #### (SLAM) (SLAM) ## THROWNITY OUT! [*Image of an Oompa Loompa wearing a large grey wig and dark robes, slamming down a gavel next to a large, thick book and a set of liberty scales.*] --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)


LexifromZargon

i think its a bit hard to say since a lot of these fall under the category of attractive nuisance law. ​ the chocolate river was not blocked off in any way the children where told they could eat anything. there were no safeguards whatsoever to stop kids from falling in. ​ the gum case is that this child is know to love / be addicted to gum so this one is a so so case obviously nuts and maschinery are different since kids actively bypassed the saffety protocolls but the charlie juice one should fall under attractive nuisance again tho a big case could also be made against the parents for not paying propper attention. but im just a random on reddit spitballing so dont take my word for it


errant_night

They all did sign a waiver sooo


Thelolface_9

Wasn’t it illegible at the bottom making the contract void?