[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Inherently dangerous practice vs. dumb bad luck Posted by Bill Homer [Email] (#3427) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Bill Homer) on Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:31:07 In Reply to: Re: Inherently dangerous practice vs. dumb bad luck, Drew in Houston, Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:32:13 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
Drew, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not based on the line of reasoning which serves as the basis for Tort law in our legal system. Our system requires that we apply a standard of care in our actions which a "reasonable man" would exercise to minimize danger to others. Not applying this care is viewed as negligence in normal circumstances.
However, as DER pointed out, "the standard of care with a dangerous instrument is often not negligence [what the "reasonable man" would do] but rather strict liability". This means that the user of a "dangerous instrument" is completely liable for ANY AND ALL damage resulting from its use, forseen or unforseen. If fireworks are a dangeous instrument (which you don't seem to believe, contrary to most states' laws), this higher standard of care applies.
A more fitting analogy might be if Tito's window was shattered by a ricochet (or a miss) from the kids taking potshots at cans with a .22 rifle, got his face badly scratched/cut but didn't lose his eye. "You were a 15 year old once, right?", "Gee, we didn't mean to shoot his car", and "wrong place, wrong time" would not exclude liability from use of a dangerous instrument in a public place.
posted by 129.188.33...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.