Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
nbohm at ernest.net
Sat Feb 18 13:19:16 GMT 2012
On 17/02/2012 21:21, Mark Lomas wrote:
> 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.
Ladders that fall on people, certainly. Ladders that are taken next
door and used to burgle the neighbours, no: the liability is to people
coming onto the defendant's land.
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
> On 17 February 2012 21:00, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com
> <mailto:fjmd1a at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2012/2/17 Mary Hawking <maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk
> <mailto: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
> > evolutionally programmed (like adults) to be curious about new
> > does the duty (if there is one) extend to adults and how is it
> For occupiers section 2 of the 1957 Act:
> 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
> Rather less duty is owed to non-visitors like trespassers:
> But this is all a long way from duty to protect others from IP
> Francis Davey
More information about the ukcrypto