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

According to HorneTD :
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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.iciclesoftware.com/VLH7/VLH7Torts.html

Look for "tort of innocent misrepresentation". Normally appears in
contract law, but it's also a risk with "volunteers" which matches
what we're doing here pretty closely.

Look also under: http://www.lawspirit.com/legalenglis...ok/torts16.htm
and "negligent misrepresentation".

Or http://www.hartley.com/neglmisr.htm

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.

So do I. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in this newsgroup handing out
technical advice or worse, writing electrical FAQs, would I?

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.

For me to "not like him", I'd have to know him, right? I'd never
seen one of his postings before.

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.

So you don't think we have any obligation to provide correct and
safe advice?

Oh oh.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

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

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to HorneTD :
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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.iciclesoftware.com/VLH7/VLH7Torts.html

Look for "tort of innocent misrepresentation". Normally appears in
contract law, but it's also a risk with "volunteers" which matches
what we're doing here pretty closely.

Look also under:
http://www.lawspirit.com/legalenglis...ok/torts16.htm
and "negligent misrepresentation".

Or http://www.hartley.com/neglmisr.htm

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.

So do I. Otherwise, I wouldn't be in this newsgroup handing out
technical advice or worse, writing electrical FAQs, would I?

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.

For me to "not like him", I'd have to know him, right? I'd never
seen one of his postings before.

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.

So you don't think we have any obligation to provide correct and
safe advice?

Oh oh.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Chris Lewis wrote:
So you don't think we have any obligation to provide correct and
safe advice?

Oh oh.

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


"Matt" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

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

According to HorneTD :
Chris Lewis wrote:
So you don't think we have any obligation to provide correct and
safe advice?

Oh oh.

Careful, What I'm saying is that we don't have such an obligation AT
LAW. There's a huge difference.

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.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

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.

According to Matt :
Blah?

You know Matt, if you ask your mommy, I'm sure she'd change
your diapers for you.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.