Chris Lewis wrote:
According to HorneTD :

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.


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.


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."


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