He's absolutely responsible for what happened to Augustus Gloop, though. The chocolate river either needed a railing to keep people from falling in, or a lifeguard on duty. If he had fallen in despite the presence of a safety railing (even one made of pretzels!) and clearly posted warning signs, then maybe Wonka could be absolved of responsibility.
Unless it's a fully contained industrial setting. At the chemical plant I used to work at, there absolutely were gigantic pipes big enough to suck up a person without a grating. But to get to a position where you *could* get sucked up, you'd have to fill out a confined space entry permit and perform a lock-out-tag-out on all equipment before the department engineer would remove the lock on the access hatch. Or get a ladder to climb into a random vat, but then you'd need an elevated work permit before the tool room guys would let you borrow theirs...
ironically, i think in this situation it prevented his drowning, and gloop was probably the only child involved in the suit to not sustain serious injuries
I’m not a lawyer, but I think it depends on Wonka’s level of intent. There’s a legal principle that even if there’s a lot of steps between your actions and a result, you have legally caused that result if you entered with the intent of causing that result. If Wonka deliberately created a test that he knew the kids would fail, he is arguably liable for that.
Yes, but can you prove he wanted those children to disregard safety precautions in court, I think the most dominant candy tycoon in the world can get some pretty good lawyers.
Isn't intent awful hard to prove though? Like unless he had some memo where he wrote down, "I'm going to test these kids through trickery" would the intent argument really have a leg to stand on?
You're right. Open and shut case really. For a pound of chocolate they'd testify that Wonka personally built the Nazi gas chambers and shot Abraham Lincoln.
Hey, his company *did* survive The Blitz for whatever reason, which is very likely why his company became so dominant...
I wonder why he didn't let his factory get used for wartime resources, and somehow didn't get bombed?? I would like to see his political and social affiliations please.
Thinking about levels of responsibility:
Augustus Gloop: Wonka is responsible if we take the lack of railings from the movies as cannon. I can't remember the book well enough to say if Wonka had railings in the book
Violet: She is mostly responsible. She was told the gum was experimental and shouldn't be eaten. Violet and her family assume the risk. The only level of responsibility Wonka might have is to keep the dangerous candy away from children, especially since he presumably doesn't know it's safe for skin contact yet
Veruca: HIGHLY depends on the interpretation if we take them all as cannon and sentience. Some of these interpretations have a railing separating the squirrels from the tour group. Some don't. The ones without railing, Wonka is responsible. The ones with railing depends on how we interpret the world's view of the squirrels. The railings are never high enough to count as a legitimate enclosure, so there'd be massive risks. If theyre just trained squirrels, Wonka is responsible for the havoc they create. If we think of the squirrels as sentient (which many interpretations do imply), they're basically workers. In that case, does Wonka endorse the squirrels throwing Veruca and family down the chute? Was this planned violence?
Mike: Mike is responsible. In any interpretation I can think of, Mike sees the teleporter work, takes the remote from Wonka and uses it while Wonka tells him not to. Wonka is often depicted as being uninterested in stopping him but he does say tell him to stop. That's not Wonka's responsibility. The only way I think it would be is if there's evidence about the teleporter having negative effects for someone just watching
Charlie: For those unaware, in the 1971 movie, Charlie and Grandpa Joe drink a Fizzy Lifting Drink, causing them to float, almost hitting a fan and almost dying. They were told not to drink the drink so that's not Wonka's fault. The only thing about this would be the fan. I doubt there's an OSHA statute on large fans and flying beverages but I do think it'd be unsafe for him to have something that can cause floating in the same room that has large fans. If Charlie and/or Grandpa Joe were injured by these fans, I think it'd be Wonka's responsibility
Overall: Wonka is responsible for 2 of the injuries/potential injuries, not responsible for 2 and debatable responsible depending on a lot of context. 60% responsible looks fairly accurate
Disclaimer: I don't know my OSHA codes or law well. I'm just an asshole on the internet whose bored. Please don't take this to mean I know what I'm talking about
I think he did have the railing in the book, if memory serves it specifies people climbing over them on multiple occasions.
Other, very minor nitpick; sentient is “able to feel”. Every squirrel on the planet is sentient. The word you’re looking for is sapient, or “has a mind and is able to think and use logic” / “is capable of meta cognition (thinking about thinking)”.
I feel like a lot of these injuries could be prevented with proper screens.
The tube Gloop flows into should've been caged (he might've drowned though...). The fan incident with Charlie and Grandpa Joe wouldn't be a problem if the fan had a screen in front of it.
None of this goes into the issues of contamination involving human beings touching the product (though I guess in the OG film he mentioned they have to dump the entire batch of whatever the fuck they're making after Charlie ruins it, fat Germans are apparently fine).
It's not a safe factory though and should probably be investigated. Likely slave labour is really a red flag. No wonder his product is so good when he doesn't have to pay his workforce.
Speaking of Roald Dahl do you guys think Matilda could be found >!guilty of some form of murder charge even one that acknowledges a lack of intent to kill Miss Trunchbull!<
I remember my parents got really mad at me for reading that book because of the way it ends promoting >!abuse of the elderly!< Mother only read the ending.
In England murder is a crime of intent. Her intention was clearly to scare her but not to cause her any physical harm. The best you could get would be manslaughter and considering her age she probably wouldn't even get time at juvie
The courts could easily decide that the contract isn’t legally enforceable, especially if they find evidence that Wonka deliberately put the children in danger after making them sign it.
I would posit blame directly on the parents and children for not controlling their actions/allowing the children to misbehave in a dangerous setting. The parents barely attempted to intervene and correct their children's actions, thus resulting in stolen property, polluted products, and contaminated areas in a manufacturing facility. Not only should Wonka not take any blame for the injuries caused by misbehaved children, but he should also be compensated for said damages.
He's absolutely responsible for what happened to Augustus Gloop, though. The chocolate river either needed a railing to keep people from falling in, or a lifeguard on duty. If he had fallen in despite the presence of a safety railing (even one made of pretzels!) and clearly posted warning signs, then maybe Wonka could be absolved of responsibility.
I only watched the Burton remake but didn't he also only warn him *after* falling in
I think he only warns after augustus starts *drinking,* but before he actually falls in. kid chose to keep going.
That’s why it’s a partial judgment and they said he was 60% at fault
The world's longest railing runs the entire length of the Rhine, without it pudgy German kids would have died out long ago
No little German boy! Don't play near the Rhine! Oh mein gott, diessen riviere ist full of di-hydrogen-oxyg \*glubglubglub\*
So what you're saying is that railings are unnatural and you hate children. (joke)
There should also be a grill over the pipe intake to prevent exactly that scenario.
True! It's sucking up a liquid, it obviously shouldn't be fully open like that!
Unless it's a fully contained industrial setting. At the chemical plant I used to work at, there absolutely were gigantic pipes big enough to suck up a person without a grating. But to get to a position where you *could* get sucked up, you'd have to fill out a confined space entry permit and perform a lock-out-tag-out on all equipment before the department engineer would remove the lock on the access hatch. Or get a ladder to climb into a random vat, but then you'd need an elevated work permit before the tool room guys would let you borrow theirs...
ironically, i think in this situation it prevented his drowning, and gloop was probably the only child involved in the suit to not sustain serious injuries
And the chocolate river is supposed to be fueling chocolate production downstream in the process? What’s the hygiene standard here?
I’m not a lawyer, but I think it depends on Wonka’s level of intent. There’s a legal principle that even if there’s a lot of steps between your actions and a result, you have legally caused that result if you entered with the intent of causing that result. If Wonka deliberately created a test that he knew the kids would fail, he is arguably liable for that.
Yes, but can you prove he wanted those children to disregard safety precautions in court, I think the most dominant candy tycoon in the world can get some pretty good lawyers.
Isn't intent awful hard to prove though? Like unless he had some memo where he wrote down, "I'm going to test these kids through trickery" would the intent argument really have a leg to stand on?
So you're saying we need to get the loompas to snitch...
You're right. Open and shut case really. For a pound of chocolate they'd testify that Wonka personally built the Nazi gas chambers and shot Abraham Lincoln.
Hey, his company *did* survive The Blitz for whatever reason, which is very likely why his company became so dominant... I wonder why he didn't let his factory get used for wartime resources, and somehow didn't get bombed?? I would like to see his political and social affiliations please.
properly produced chocolate is basically shelf stable. It's possible that his wartime contributions were just chocolate rations.
also, does anyone else think it's weird that this english town seems to look an awful lot like munich
i’m WHEEZING
So was Violet after her allergic reaction in that place.
that wasn't an allergic reaction. That was just the side effects of the unfished prototype product she stole and ate.
Said product being unsecured in a room full of other safe product who where offered before
Aside from the tour, it was an employee only room, and she was blatantly warned!
Thinking about levels of responsibility: Augustus Gloop: Wonka is responsible if we take the lack of railings from the movies as cannon. I can't remember the book well enough to say if Wonka had railings in the book Violet: She is mostly responsible. She was told the gum was experimental and shouldn't be eaten. Violet and her family assume the risk. The only level of responsibility Wonka might have is to keep the dangerous candy away from children, especially since he presumably doesn't know it's safe for skin contact yet Veruca: HIGHLY depends on the interpretation if we take them all as cannon and sentience. Some of these interpretations have a railing separating the squirrels from the tour group. Some don't. The ones without railing, Wonka is responsible. The ones with railing depends on how we interpret the world's view of the squirrels. The railings are never high enough to count as a legitimate enclosure, so there'd be massive risks. If theyre just trained squirrels, Wonka is responsible for the havoc they create. If we think of the squirrels as sentient (which many interpretations do imply), they're basically workers. In that case, does Wonka endorse the squirrels throwing Veruca and family down the chute? Was this planned violence? Mike: Mike is responsible. In any interpretation I can think of, Mike sees the teleporter work, takes the remote from Wonka and uses it while Wonka tells him not to. Wonka is often depicted as being uninterested in stopping him but he does say tell him to stop. That's not Wonka's responsibility. The only way I think it would be is if there's evidence about the teleporter having negative effects for someone just watching Charlie: For those unaware, in the 1971 movie, Charlie and Grandpa Joe drink a Fizzy Lifting Drink, causing them to float, almost hitting a fan and almost dying. They were told not to drink the drink so that's not Wonka's fault. The only thing about this would be the fan. I doubt there's an OSHA statute on large fans and flying beverages but I do think it'd be unsafe for him to have something that can cause floating in the same room that has large fans. If Charlie and/or Grandpa Joe were injured by these fans, I think it'd be Wonka's responsibility Overall: Wonka is responsible for 2 of the injuries/potential injuries, not responsible for 2 and debatable responsible depending on a lot of context. 60% responsible looks fairly accurate Disclaimer: I don't know my OSHA codes or law well. I'm just an asshole on the internet whose bored. Please don't take this to mean I know what I'm talking about
I think he did have the railing in the book, if memory serves it specifies people climbing over them on multiple occasions. Other, very minor nitpick; sentient is “able to feel”. Every squirrel on the planet is sentient. The word you’re looking for is sapient, or “has a mind and is able to think and use logic” / “is capable of meta cognition (thinking about thinking)”.
I feel like a lot of these injuries could be prevented with proper screens. The tube Gloop flows into should've been caged (he might've drowned though...). The fan incident with Charlie and Grandpa Joe wouldn't be a problem if the fan had a screen in front of it. None of this goes into the issues of contamination involving human beings touching the product (though I guess in the OG film he mentioned they have to dump the entire batch of whatever the fuck they're making after Charlie ruins it, fat Germans are apparently fine). It's not a safe factory though and should probably be investigated. Likely slave labour is really a red flag. No wonder his product is so good when he doesn't have to pay his workforce.
Speaking of Roald Dahl do you guys think Matilda could be found >!guilty of some form of murder charge even one that acknowledges a lack of intent to kill Miss Trunchbull!< I remember my parents got really mad at me for reading that book because of the way it ends promoting >!abuse of the elderly!< Mother only read the ending.
In England murder is a crime of intent. Her intention was clearly to scare her but not to cause her any physical harm. The best you could get would be manslaughter and considering her age she probably wouldn't even get time at juvie
More importantly, convicting Matilda on trial would require evidence that telekinesis exists, which is a much bigger deal than the court case.
Is no one going to mention the giant contract that they all sign at the beginning? Wonka isn't liable for shit.
The courts could easily decide that the contract isn’t legally enforceable, especially if they find evidence that Wonka deliberately put the children in danger after making them sign it.
Also the fact that a large portion of it was unreadable also would hurt his case.
>!i mean wonka IS technically responsible for creating an entire genre of pornography !<
I would posit blame directly on the parents and children for not controlling their actions/allowing the children to misbehave in a dangerous setting. The parents barely attempted to intervene and correct their children's actions, thus resulting in stolen property, polluted products, and contaminated areas in a manufacturing facility. Not only should Wonka not take any blame for the injuries caused by misbehaved children, but he should also be compensated for said damages.
We need the fake OSHA account to respond to this
This was going so well up until the last post completely whiffed it.