Chris Lewis wrote:
According to HorneTD :


Sorry but no. I'm not a lawyer either but I do know that to have a
cause of action at law the person you are suing must have had a duty to
you that they breached. It is decided law that advice given freely is
worth what you pay for it and creates no duty toward the hearer.


Uh, no. It _helps_ to be sure. Particularly for professionals handing
out free advice, but sometimes being a professional may make it worse.

It's by no means a slam dunk. There's never _zero_ duty of care.

Given a sufficiently egregious stupidity, _nothing_ will save you.

Matt's being a case in point. He'd be in even more danger if he
were a "pro".

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