DM Liability

[jhelmuth]

No, I made a statement that is clearly correct but do not have the desire to reasearch third world legal cases in order to satisfy your request that I provide a specific example with narrow paramaters.

...
Once again you feel that I am obligated to do research for you so let me thow you a bone and look up liable for you:

liable - At risk of or subject to experiencing or suffering something unpleasant.

James - here's a bone for you. I do research. I could not find any case law indicating you are correct (thereby making your argument invalid). So it is now up to you to provide the evidence, since the lack of such evidence does not support your statements.

Main Entry: li·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'lI-&-b&l, esp in sense 2 often 'lI-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lyable, from (assumed) Anglo-French, from Old French lier to bind, from Latin ligare -- more at LIGATURE
Date: 15th century
1 a : obligated according to law or equity : RESPONSIBLE b : subject to appropriation or attachment
2 a : being in a position to incur -- used with to <liable to a fine> b : exposed or subject to some usually adverse contingency or action <watch out or you're liable to fall>
synonyms LIABLE, OPEN, EXPOSED, SUBJECT, PRONE, SUSCEPTIBLE, SENSITIVE mean being by nature or through circumstances likely to experience something adverse. LIABLE implies a possibility or probability of incurring something because of position, nature, or particular situation <liable to get lost>. OPEN stresses a lack of barriers preventing incurrence <a claim open to question>. EXPOSED suggests lack of protection or powers of resistance against something actually present or threatening <exposed to infection>. SUBJECT implies an openness for any reason to something that must be suffered or undergone <all reports are subject to review>. PRONE stresses natural tendency or propensity to incur something <prone to procrastination>. SUSCEPTIBLE implies conditions existing in one's nature or individual constitution that make incurrence probable <very susceptible to flattery>. SENSITIVE implies a readiness to respond to or be influenced by forces or stimuli <unduly sensitive to criticism>.
usage Both liable and apt when followed by an infinitive are used nearly interchangeably with likely. Although conflicting advice has been given over the years, most current commentators accept apt when so used. They generally recommend limiting liable to situations having an undesirable outcome, and our evidence shows that in edited writing it is more often so used than not. synonym see in addition RESPONSIBLE

 

[HammerNoMore]

"However in many parts of the world if you so much as lift a finger to help, and a person suffers ill effects because of, or in spite of your aid, you are liable."

Which you, though a leap of logic that that still evades me, turned into:

"Divers have been forced to pay, through legal measures, compensation to victims they attempted to aid during the course of diving activites."

And then, you expect me to spend time reasearching foreign legal cases to come up with proof of a statement I never made.

If you don't get that I don't know how to explain it better.

The simple decision to act puts you into a position of liablity. You've said it yourself. What in the world are you arguing about?

 

[HammerNoMore]

James - here's a bone for you. I do research. I could not find any case law indicating you are correct (thereby making your argument invalid).

Really? Invalid? That's a stretch. You cannot prove me right so therefore I am wrong?

Ok, tell me. Seeing as how you live in Florida. What was the source of your legal research?

 

[DiverDunk]

OK - I think I've got an answer to my original question. Thanks to all for the input. I'll leave the rest of the thread to the attorneys to argue the minutiae.

Cheers!

Steve

 

[michaelp68]

Which you, though a leap of logic that that still evades me, turned into:

"Divers have been forced to pay, through legal measures, compensation to victims they attempted to aid during the course of diving activites."

And then, you expect me to spend time reasearching foreign legal cases to come up with proof of a statement I never made.

If you don't get that I don't know how to explain it better.

The simple decision to act puts you into a position of liablity. You've said it yourself. What in the world are you arguing about?

James, I don't know why you keep arguing with me on this. Give it up already.

I didn't make the representation to this Board about divers being liable. You did. You did not initially tell the public on this Board that divers might get dragged into a lawsuit. Rather, you told the public on this Board that divers will be liable. While neither of these is desirable, there's a significant difference.

You said divers are liable.

You also, apparently, have no information or fact to back that up.

Admit it and move on, or back up your statement with fact.

You may not take this seriously, but I consider it somewhat significant when a Moderator on this Board tells people on this Board they are liable for something. And then it turns out that what you have represented is nothing more than your hunch, or guess, and that you have no facts to support your legal advice.

Michael

 

[HammerNoMore]

Give it up already.

You said divers are liable.

Yep, you're right I am ready to give up. I made no such statement and refuse to continue arguing with someone who wants to put words into my mouth. *plonk*.

 

[jhelmuth]

Really? Invalid? That's a stretch. You cannot prove me right so therefore I am wrong?

Ok, tell me. Seeing as how you live in Florida. What was the source of your legal research?

The internet. Google, MSN and Yahoo search engines. amny entries - no cases.

BTW, what does Florida have to do with it?

And yes - since I cannot prove you right (that is your job - not mine), then by default, your statment is not valid. It's your responsibility to prove it correct! Since you can't (or won't), then we'll all agree (except you) that you are pulling it out of thin-air.

 

[HammerNoMore]

The internet. Google, MSN and Yahoo search engines. amny entries - no cases.

BTW, what does Florida have to do with it?

Because in the US we have, for the most part, legal protection for good samaritans. I'm specificly speaking of countries that do not offer such legal protection. As I have pointed out, these countries also do not generally have open access to legal proceedings so they are not likely to be found on the internet.

You say you do legal research. You should know then that even with the protection afforded here, people try to take legal action against good samaritans. You should also know that judges tend to interpret the law without reguard to fairness and were these laws not there, many of the cases that resolved successfully for the defendants would have turned out differently.

My point is that there are a lot of countries that do not offer this protection. If you travel (as many of us do) you should not assume that whatever country you are in affords you the protection you have here.

And yes - since I cannot prove you right (that is your job - not mine), then by default, your statment is not valid. It's your responsibility to prove it correct! Since you can't (or won't), then we'll all agree (except you) that you are pulling it out of thin-air.

I've already backed up my statement. Several times. Again as a legal researcher you should know that the if the law doesn't specificly protect you then you can be found liable. What I have not done, or even attempted to do, is to prove statements I never made.

James

 

[michaelp68]

Yep, you're right I am ready to give up. I made no such statement and refuse to continue arguing with someone who wants to put words into my mouth. *plonk*.

James, you did make the statement.

Your exact words from your own post in this thread, post number 32, were: "However in many parts of the world if you so much as lift a finger to help, and a person suffers ill effects because of, or in spite of your aid, you are liable."

So, you have told people they are liable, yet you admit to having no factual basis for this. And now, you have denied making the statement, yet these are your words.

Nice troll. Try taking the giving of legal advice a bit more seriously, though.

 

[Diver0001]

James, you did make the statement.

Your exact words from your own post in this thread, post number 32, were: "However in many parts of the world if you so much as lift a finger to help, and a person suffers ill effects because of, or in spite of your aid, you are liable."*

So, you have told people they are liable, yet you admit to having no factual basis for this. And now, you have denied making the statement, yet these are your words.

Nice troll. Try taking the giving of legal advice a bit more seriously, though.

* emphasis added by me

I actually think that what James is saying in the bit you quoted is also what AzAtty is saying. My take is that this (what James is saying) applies at least in the United States. It's also clear that there are "many" part of the world (some European countries for example) where this isn't the case at all.

R..