Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
ukcrypto at absent-minded.com
Fri Feb 17 18:45:45 GMT 2012
Ladder keepers might fall prey to the doctrine of 'attractive nuisance'.
You have a duty to protect children against the dangers of anything they
may find attractive but not recognise as dangerous.
Originally the danger itself needed to be attractive (e.g. a swimming
pool), but I understand that some jurisdictions now consider any unguarded
danger to be an attractive nuisance.
In particular, a warning sign may be considered inadequate protection,
especially if the child is too young to read it.
On 17 February 2012 17:48, Nicholas Bohm <nbohm at ernest.net> wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 17:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> > In article <4F3E785C.2090700 at ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm
> > <nbohm at ernest.net> writes
> >> Providing tools to a thief makes it sound like aiding or abetting -
> >> which is different from neglecting to take steps to prevent a thief from
> >> having access to your tools.
> > That's the distinction which I think policy makers have to discuss.
> > Liability of intermediaries (even involuntary ones) is still very much
> > in a state of flux.
> As regards routers (and perhaps as regards car users' parking fines) you
> are no doubt right.
> I detect no sign of ladder keepers being at risk, however, nor of the
> general principle changing. I think we are looking at a fight over a
> small number of exceptions to a well-established rule.
> Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto