::::::::I thought you meant that actually, but how do you know if "duty of care" is always applied. You seem to think that some safe havens exist where "duty of care" does not apply. It is thus somehow god-given that substandard translations simply do not occur, just because it is a literary translation. And that automatically no damages could be litigated from another party. This is not the legal thinking of the 1990 ruling. The litigation risks still do indeed factually exist. 

 ::::::::Tim Martin from above goes on to cite Byrne: "Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make mistakes or that the issue of translator liability is not something with which we should concern ourselves. […] ..the implications of substandard translations must be treated seriously.” (Byrne 2007: 2)."   

 ::::::::Tim Martin, "That seems to me a very sane and sanguine conclusion to draw. Perhaps the lack of litigation reflects translator skill and reviser acumen, but perhaps too it is just luck and lack of customer expertise. Either way, we should retain a healthy fear of translation errors in texts with a serious legal, political or commercial dimension — which account for most of what’s translated where I work and must surely account for a large chunk of most corporate and freelance workloads."