Because of this one story, people pretend that any change to the contrary is basically impossible in perpetuity in the future, because "precedent exists".
I suppose there is some shred of truth in there, but it seems like a defeatist attitude and a convenient excuse to do nothing even when the status quo is bad. (not all precedents are good)
The burglar case of course is silly, but there are plenty of personal injury cases for things like slip & fall on private property, a reckless driver damaging a parked car, etc. where a reasonable person might think "that's bullshit, the property owner shouldn't be responsible" but they end up having to settle.
The problem is a discrepancy between the law as written and the law as practiced. It results in inconsistent law.
What you often see is "Someone could sue you for X, so you better not do it." This is technically true, but what they should say is "Someone could sue you for X, but they would lose".
In the US you can sue anybody you want for anything under the sun. Saying "someone could sue you for that" is always true. There is a huge gulf between bringing a lawsuit and actually winning said lawsuit.
You also see disingenuous case citations to try to support an otherwise unsupportable point. "20 years ago a trespasser successfully sued the homeowner for injuries sustained on the property." Not mentioned in that previous blurb: "The trespasser was injured when the homeowner shot him with a shotgun without warning."
Because of this one story, people pretend that any change to the contrary is basically impossible in perpetuity in the future, because "precedent exists".
I suppose there is some shred of truth in there, but it seems like a defeatist attitude and a convenient excuse to do nothing even when the status quo is bad. (not all precedents are good)