On 26/08/2019 10:09, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:25:59 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

AIUI the courts would look at various
things - including the nature of cats and the impracticability of
fencing them in. And it seems to me significant that no one seems to
know of cases decided in favour of a claimant.

But that doesn't mean they don't exit, however 'difficult / unlikely'?

Yep - just like the absence of photos of unicorns doesn't mean they
don't exist.

No, not like that at all, unless you have access to all legal cases
across the world, however historic?

I was simply agreeing that it is impossible to prove a negative. That
applies equally to the absence of evidence of successful claims for
damages against cat owners and the absence of evidence of unicorns.

And given you yourself have referenced there are specific scenarios
where a cat owner could be held responsible for their cat causing
damage to property or personal injury, why wouldn't such exist?

Cummon, you are normally better that this Robin!
I don't know about that. I do know that I find your paraphrase above
misrepresents my comments.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid