Right. Your point was that the innocient person would "learn a lesson and not do it again" or some such. If the rope broke because of a defaulty rope, he wouldn't learn anything. If it broke because of something stupid he did, he'd learn something....and he'd get sued. Thus "losing" like the other 3 dudes in your post.
What? No. Where did you get that rot - I'm talking about what our justice system is based on. Yes, it is supposed that a lesson might be learned, but history gives us many examples of people repeating their mistakes over and over again. The main point I was trying to make is how we weigh intent and action from a moral and practical standpoint. Intent is usually weighed before action/results, but in cases where there is no intent (or at least no ill intent) we typically judge action and results in terms of fault. That's all I'm trying to say.