|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Sport Climbing:
Re: [redlude97] Draw Thief Caught:
Edit Log
|
|
moose_droppings
Jan 1, 2011, 7:04 AM
Views: 14010
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
redlude97 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law. *plonk* So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?
How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.
Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land. Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.
Jay and you are both intentionally ignoring that I had originally stated that not all liability claims are the same and need to be put into context with the circumstances. Different circumstances to both of your prior scenarios can change the outcome without changing either of your stated assertions.
But now neither of you will except anything that doesn't fit your ever narrowing tolerances. It's a given if we restrain the circumstances that you and Jay want to impose then that someone probably won't be held liable. All I've said throughout is that each case is different and not all cases will withstand either of your initial asserted defenses of assuming risks or inherent risk.
Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response.
Edited because it's late and I'm tired.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Jan 1, 2011, 7:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
