> He said he was having a hell of a time selling property owners on the 
> equipment because if they knew what their building was doing then it would 
> make then liable for any consequences.
>

I had the same advice from a lawyer when I began operating a Provincial 
historic site as a private business.   The hand rails on a foot bridge did 
not come close to meeting the Provincial Building Code for safe design.   I 
sought legal advice about my liability for inviting people over the bridge 
into the mill for tours.   When I asked if I should put up a warning sign 
about the railings, the lawyer replied firmly:
 "No warning signs!  Then you are admitting you know there is something 
wrong and then you assume the liability.  Better to claim ignorance, and let 
the judge sort out liability.  In case of injury, everyone will get sued, 
and the judge will assign liability based on the ability of the several 
parties to pay.   Obviously the Province can pay more than you, so keep 
quiet about the railing risk and be prepared to pay 1% of the claim."

cp in risky bc 

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>