Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)

Subject: Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)
From: Jay Mead <jlmead -at- OURAY -dot- CUDENVER -dot- EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:28:30 -0700

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Peter Ring, PRC wrote:

> Please note, that the opposite situation is just as possible: a law
> suit - e.g. through a labour union - that a manual was written in
> such an academic language that it was unreadable for the worker and
> his/her foreman (or for a consumer) so that THIS was responsible for
> an accident.
>
> Does ANYBODY know of ANY real law suit(s) following any of the
> above cases and the result(s) of this/these law suits?

There is a superb example of such a lawsuit, concerning the lack of
clarity of a benefits package description--and as I remember the company
lost the case (proving just how valuable we writers are)! I can't
remember the citation just now (I'll look it up at home
tonight)--I read it in a graduate course at the Univ of Colo a couple of
years ago. Any UCD graduates out there remember that example? From Jim
Stratman's Legal Writing class?

Jay Mead
Galileo International
jay -dot- mead -at- den -dot- galileo -dot- com

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Value added by technical documentation
Next by Author: Re: Hottest TechCom Topics Today
Previous by Thread: Re: product lite
Next by Thread: Re: Convicted for using a non-academic language ? (was: Hot Topics)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads