Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
mozolevsky at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 21:07:44 GMT 2012
On 17 February 2012 19:13, Mary Hawking <maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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?
On top of what Francis said, there is a case of Taylor v Glasgow Corp
(not on Bailii) where a 7 year old ate "attractive" poisonous berries
(which were fenced off, but within reach) and died...
In any event, isn't "contributory negligence" a defence to a claim of
negligence, and not a form of accessory liability?
More information about the ukcrypto