According to DJ :
"Reasonable person test" would fail ;-)
That said, a common "sample case" shown in law courses is where a guy said to the wife of a friend "your husband just got killed in a car accident" as a joke. Wife faints, falls down the stairs and injures herself.
"Reasonable man test" says "a reasonable person would know, or ought to have known that there was a good chance it'd be believed, and if believed, something "bad" has a reasonable chance of happening".
_That_ is civil assault.
Chris,
All the examples you have given involve people who know each other.
Mix in the randomness/anonymity of usenet, and then cite some cases for me.
Matt
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these newsgroup postings archived by the server networks? If that is the case all Matts comments would be real easy to find if someone did feel he caused them harm and wanted to take legal action. It's interesting to note that some of his follow up comments are almost more damaging to his credability than his initial comments on how to trace an underground wire by shorting out your main fuse box.
Just my opinion
Jimbo
Jimbo,
Yes, my post and about 2.5 billion others.
Go check the "ground a computer" thread. At least 25 people gave advice that could kill multiple people at the same time, and - they were being serious.
Me getting hit with a lawsuit seems to fascinate you - why not go trace some buried wire tonight, using my method?
Cya in the court room, you freakin loser.
If you don't all ready realize it "F" this and "Freakin Loser" etc. etc. do more to lower your credability than anything I or anyone could possibly say about you.
I think it's obvious to almost everyone following this thread that you love to be the center of attention and I'm sure there's a medical condition that would explain your problem but that's a topic for another newsgroup.
Jimbo
I'll take it on faith that you have actually researched this in your state and assume that is correct there, but in Maryland no duty = no cause of action. I had to take four semesters of the stuff for my fire service public safety degree. All six of the lawyers who taught the courses at the University of Maryland at College Park said the same thing "you must have a duty to a person before there can be a cause of action at law."
An example of this concept is called the "Doctrine of Rescue." You can be an Olympic class swimmer, a trained lifeguard, and be at the beach for the express purpose of practicing lifesaving techniques but as long as you have not voluntarily taken on the duties of a lifeguard at that beach you can watch someone drown with legal impunity. The doctrine of rescue states that "no one can be required at law to imperil them self to rescue another from their own folly." The life guards who did not go to the rescue of a shark attack victim off of their beach successfully had all the cases against them dismissed during pretrial motions under the doctrine of rescue. The Florida Courts recognized that entering the water during a shark attack was beyond the scope of their duties. The state court of appeals declined Certiorari and let the dismissals stand without comment.
In order to win this one you are going to have to sight an appeals court decision that upholds a judgment against a person who gave free advice without any hope of gain were the injury complained of was the result of that advice. That would be what is called a case on point. Anything short of that is just the pair of us blowing smoke.
-- Tom
According to HorneTD :
I've taken law courses too, where this stuff was covered in depth.
Law is an _attempt_ to apply reasonability to individual cases, yet using formalized language that works consistently and fairly in _all_ cases.
That's an enormous challenge when you think about it.
We forget that every case differs. If, when you look at a "case", that it'd be "reasonable" for it to be decided in a given way, it probably would be. Lawyers get paid for figuring out how the case fits in with pre-established doctrines of reasonability.
Right. What you're missing is that "duty" (if any) is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Failing to act to save someone (your "doctrine of rescue" example) is an act of omission (I'll point out that some jurisdictions give you an obligation to act under "reasonable man doctrine", but that isn't at issue here).
Giving advice is an act of _commission_. There is some level of "duty" on _every_ act of commission. It's virtually never zero.
When you give advice to someone, there is a "duty" to not endanger the person who might take it. How far that duty goes depends on factors individual to each and every case.
Factors such as:
1) If you're an expert/professional in the field or not. 2) If you're being paid for it or not. [professionals in a field are held to higher standards of duty, being paid for a specific thing just raises the duty higher.] 3) If the advice is wrong or not. 4) If the advice is wrong, and you _knew_ it. 5) If it was apparent that the person receiving the advice is likely to hurt themselves (due to lack of knowledge) and you fail to warn them of that.No combination of the above factors reduces your "duty" (meaning: risk of being sued or losing the suit) to zero.
Let's say you're being paid to do a job, and your a certified professional. You deliberately give bad/dangerous advice. You breached your duty, the penalties will be severe.
But if you weren't certified and not paid, you've _still_ breached a duty, the risk of losing the suit may be lower (but not zero) and the penalties may be lower.
I personally feel that any advice given in forums such as this should be as accurate as we can make it. Because people _do_ use advice they see here - and that implies a duty on those who give it.
This is obviously very important to you though I'm having trouble figuring out why. Is it perhaps because you are determined to silence, or at least put down, someone who irritated you quite a lot. Site a case upheld on appeal or give it up. Talk theory all you want until there is an actual case on point it is all speculation.
I should however admit that I have a very strong allergic reaction to management by liability. I believe that one should do what they believe is right and leave the legal consequences to lawyers.
I also believe that the original posting that produced all of this personal enmity was clearly and obviously a joke. I see the flaming surrounding that posting as a straw man for old issues between those attacking the original poster and him. You don't like him so anything he says has to be gravely and seriously wrong. If in fact the law can take a joke and turn it into some sort of serious tort then the nation is going straight to hell. I do not see how the lack of native wit or intelligence on the part of one of Bugs Bunny's people (what a Moroon); i.e. anyone who would follow that post as actual electrical advice; should impose legal peril on anyone.
Believe what you want, as fiercely as you want! That does not obligate me to agree with you. I believe based on my training and experience that you are wrong. Since neither of us is likely to be persuaded by the others fervor I suggest we let it go.
-- Tom H
According to HorneTD :
You're reading much more into this than you should. I'm just pointing out where you're lulling yourself into a false sense of security if you think "not being paid" absolutely shields you.
Nothing does, unless your state or other jurisdiction has explicitly shielded you. See the link below.
Have you ever tried searching for such a narrow thing when you don't have real lawbooks at your side? Hah! ;-)
Then again, these should put paid to the argument:
Look also under:
Or
So do I. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in this newsgroup handing out technical advice or worse, writing electrical FAQs, would I?
For me to "not like him", I'd have to know him, right? I'd never seen one of his postings before.
So you don't think we have any obligation to provide correct and safe advice?
Oh oh.
Chris:
Right or wrong I think anyone following this thread will think twice before they offer advise that they know, if followed, could cause harm. If it has made people think about the issue this thread has been a great success.
Jimbo
Careful, What I'm saying is that we don't have such an obligation AT LAW. There's a huge difference.
-- Tom Horne
Jimbo -
How did that cable trace work out for ya?
I approached my mailbox slowly this afternoon - carefully; with great trepadation.
I dreaded opening it and finding a summons, charging me with manslaughter, because I made a joking post on usenet last month.
Alas, there was none.
Chris obviously won't let this horse die and admit he is so far out in right field with his 'answers' that building a stadium for him to play in is pointless.
Seems to me Chris has watched one too many episodes of Judge Judy.
You, on the other hand - you are such a clueless nitwit that further comment isn't needed.
Matt
Matt:
If you haven't already notice I didn't mention you in my post and Chris and the others debating with him on the legalities of the issue haven't mention your name much either.
For what ever reason you seem to zero in on me when ever I enter the discussion and in my opinion that can only mean that I have said something that deeply upset you. Please accept my opology and rest assured I will try not to do it again.
Jimbo
Gee Jimbo,
I too can't understand why it is that I zero in on you when you mention my name in every post you make.
Gosh, it's just so hard to understand.
Wow; it's almost like I have become an obsession for you.
But, seeing as how you are such a swell guy, and have offered such a swell apology and all, well, gosh... I just don't know what to say.
How about this:
1) Keep out of conversations you have no reason to speak in. 2) Quit worrying so much about how others judge you, and speak your own mind. 3) See #2. 4) If you are still worried about building 'credibility' on usenet - you have some problems. See a therapist. 5) See #2.Golly gee whiz, Jimbo - thats about it.
Oh - one other thing.
If I was over 50, and people still called me 'Jimbo'.... yeah, I guess I would go ahead and put that bullet in my head.
Your friend, Matt
That was a distinction I was hoping you'd bring up ;-)
I think it's fair to say that we both feel an _ethical_ (or moral if you wish) obligation to provide the most accurate information we can. And in some cases advise people that we don't think they know enough to do something themselves.
We both feel that obligation, even if there wasn't a legal one.
As a consequence, we also have an obligation to point out where other people are wrong. Even if it's you (or me). You're not wrong very often. Your rants at people advocating stupid things are truly works of art. But occasionally, you are. As I am.
You point out where I goof, and I point out where you goof. There's nothing personal in it. Fortunately, both are pretty rare ;-)
I'm just pointing out that even superman has his vulnerabilities. There is no slam dunk. Even if there were, the courts don't always recognize (or even hear) the slam dunk part.
As a final comment, if the others are true, and all of the advice here is highly suspect, and stupid/wrong advice is as equally acceptable as good/right advice, I don't think I'd be here. Nor, I think, would you. There'd be no point.
Blah?
Blah bla bla blah bla. Blah blah blah blah blah bla, bla bla bla bla bla bla blah. Bla blah; bla bla blah blah blah bla blah blah blah bla.
Blah bla.... Bla bla?
Blah blah bla, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Bla - blah blah blah?
Blah Blah!
Blah,
Blah.
This is the first post from you that actually makes sense.
According to Matt :
You know Matt, if you ask your mommy, I'm sure she'd change your diapers for you.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.