There's been a bit of a turnaround here in Australia too although
most people still think that US 'let's sue Mcdonalds for making me
fat' rules apply because they see so much of it tarted up as
entertainment. In fact, many cases are settlied for piddling sums,
leaving both sides mildly annoyed and disappointed.
A case where someone was killed by a malicious tree in a National
Park when it hurled itself on to a car in a storm was overturned on
appeal. The reasoning was that if you go and park in a car park in a
natural park area on a windy day, even in a designated car park zone,
you had to have some expectation of the possibility that a tree might
just go and do that. Because, especially with eucalypts, that is in
their nature.
So even in a system derived from English Common law (where at one
time you might have been required to pay damages to the thegn of the
desmegne for the loss of the tree - one schilling), common sense can
prevail. Just keep it away from a jury.
AndrewF
On 15/05/2005, at 6:17 AM, Moose wrote:
> I later asked a local about liability and lawsuits in such a
> situation.
> He said he couldn't imagine anyone injured on the volcano even
> considering trying a lawsuit as it would be thrown out of court. It is
> assumed in law that people know about obvious dangers and have
> chosen to
> take the risk, so the liability is theirs.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|