Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
nbohm at ernest.net
Sat Feb 18 13:23:37 GMT 2012
On 18/02/2012 02:20, Tom Thomson wrote:
> 17 February 2012 Francis Davey
>> Rather less duty is owed to non-visitors like trespassers:
> And (5) of that section, with the phrases "in an appropriate case" and "as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case", ensures that no layman can possibly know what he has to do give warning that is adequate to fulfil the duty or indeed whether it is even possible to give such warning; and no lawyer can tell him unless he knows of some case law from a court high enough up the tree to set a binding precedent. It is typical unreasonable law - ignorance of the law is no defence, but the law is phrased in such a way as to ensure that ordinary mortals like myself have no idea what it means.
I sympathise with this, though I find it hard to see what legislators or
judges can do about it.
In practice household insurance policies provide public liability cover
for the liabilities in question, so householders do whatever they think
sensible and leave the risk to the insurers. If insurers thought it
would reduce their exposure if they insisted on specific precautions,
that's probably what they would do. As far as I know, they don't.
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto