On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:43:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 26/08/2019 11:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:42:13 +0100, Robin wrote:

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.

Except we know unicorns don't exist and we do know that cat owners are
able to be held legally accountable?

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.

As your comment about Unicorns undermines the genuine spirit of my
point?

You were trying to deflect the weight to be attached to the absence of
known cases where cat owners had been held liable with the equivalent of
"just because no one has seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist".

I was? That was never my intention (and I never included any
acceptance of a mythical creature (or any other hypothetical point) as
any counterpoint). The spirit of my focus still stands (not that they
have or haven't ever been held accountable, but that they can and
should be).

And let's assume there is no case law yet on this subject, with the
world becoming more litigious, who is to say there won't be in the
future (given there is law that can already cover such). Not the same
for your reference to unicorns (past or present). ;-)

I did say that I thought you'd be a good person to take such a case.

Maybe with your assistance. ;-)

Cheers, T i m