[Penn Jennings] (orthography touched up the way I understand it to be meant)
| In the example the List manager is made aware that a very serious
| threat exists on his list. He takes no action. This allows the
| threat to continue to exist. If someone joins the list AFTER the
| threat was identified and is damaged by this threat you may be
| held partially responsible because the damage was foreseeable AND
| avoidable. A jury can decide that you are a factor in the damage
| and say you were, let's say, 25% at fault. In a $1,000,000 suit
| that comes to..... Damn $250,000.
You're assuming the threat in itself causes damage. What threat are
you having in mind?
Obnoxious poster: "I will kill everyone who joins this list!"
Newcomer: "Uh-ah! I will need to go to therapy now. It probably will
cost me a million dollars before I have recovered. You'll all hear
from my lawyer!"
The newcomer should be fined for contempt, trying such a case. (A
common occurence in Norway when American lawyers come over...)
I'd say that removing the person making threats is a more dangerous
action. If the intended victim isn't made aware of the danger he's in,
he can't take action. It's the possible victim who should make the
call whether contacting the police is necessary.
Kjetil T.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
