If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability.
(2015) (the "dancing baby" case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright."
Walmart settled with the McNair family for $10 million, while admitting no liability.
In September 2017 the court ruled that Carlyle had no liability in the lawsuit.
In Texas, a physician who voluntarily assisted in the delivery of an infant, and who proved that he had "no expectation of remuneration", had no liability for the infant's injuries due to allegedly ordinary negligence;
When considering the consequences which are to be imposed on those involved in the activities forming the subject matter of the common law or legislation, governments and judges have a choice: To be excused from liability means that although the defendant may have been a participant in the sequence of events leading to the prohibited outcome, no liability will attach to the particular defendant because they belong to a class of person exempted from liability.
This ensures that the corporate raider improves their net worth, and has no liability to deal with the firm recently placed into liquidation.
The most significant example known concerns double-taxation treaty arrangements where the Finance Act 2008 with BN66 retrospectively amended 1987 legislation, creating large tax liabilities for 3,000 people where no liability existed before.
The appellate court rejected the plaintiff's argument and found no liability on the part of Matchmaker.
In June 2005, jurors found that the aircraft's manufacturer had no liability in the deaths of Stewart and Fraley and that no negligence was found in the design or manufacture of the aircraft.
These points differ for each animal sold (although each animal's contract includes not showing it to anyone), and breaking this contract usually results in dire (and sometimes disturbing) consequences for the buyer, for which the pet shop claims no liability.
The suit was headed for retrial when Kerr-McGee settled out of court in 1986 for $1.38 million, admitting no liability.
As a result, they accepted no liability for her injuries and paid no compensation, either to Kershaw during her final illness or to her family after her death.