Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | His reply: No. Have you read The Lazy Teenager by Virtual Reality?" < [log in to unmask]> |
Date: | Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:42:10 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 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>
|
|
|