Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Mark Lomas ukcrypto at absent-minded.com
Fri Feb 17 21:21:07 GMT 2012

Thank you - yes, the logic behind the doctrine is that children may not be
able to judge risk, it is not to eliminate all risk.

e.g. Lynch v Nurdin (Queen's Bench 1841): a 7 year old child climbed onto
the wheel of an unattended cart. Other children disturbed the horse and the
first child fell, breaking his leg. The servant who left the cart
unattended was found responsible.

I agree that it does not apply to IP infringement. I was only suggesting
that it may apply to ladders.


On 17 February 2012 21:00, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2012/2/17 Mary Hawking <maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk>:
> >
> > Could you elaborate on this doctrine and whether it is a legal one? It’s
> new
> > to me.
> >
> > Sounds as though it could be used for almost anything – children being
> > evolutionally programmed (like adults) to be curious about new
> experiences:
> > does the duty (if there is one) extend to adults and how is it defined?
> >
> For occupiers section 2 of the 1957 Act:
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/31/section/2
> says most of the above. If you (say) open your (large) garden to
> families then you will expect children to be running around, so you
> have to make sure to they don't fall in the traps, etc. Its common
> sense.
> Rather less duty is owed to non-visitors like trespassers:
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/3/section/1
> But this is all a long way from duty to protect others from IP
> infringement.
> --
> Francis Davey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20120217/41dfeea8/attachment.html>

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list