Oh, point well made. Thanks for the clarification. I'll make sure my kids pay attention to the little things... Michael Sorbera Webmaster ----- Original Message ----- From: <Bill_Royds@pch.gc.ca> To: "Webmaster" <webmaster@rbfcu.org> Cc: "Claussen, Ken" <kclausse@columbus.rr.com>; "'Zachary Uram'" <zu22@andrew.cmu.edu>; "'Young, Beth A.'" <youngba@more.net>; <firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:27 PM Subject: Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document > Your example is a standard law example showing negligent liability. > > from http://lawschool.lexis.com/emanuel/web/torts/torts06.htm > > C. Foreseeable intervening causes: Often the risk of a particular kind of > intervening cause is the very risk (or one of the risks) which made D's conduct > negligent in the first place. Where this is the case, the intervening cause will > almost never relieve D of liability. [148 - 151] > > > Example: D leaves his car keys in the ignition, and the car unlocked, while > going into a store to do an errand. X comes along, steals the car, and > while driving fast to get out of the neighborhood, runs over P. If the > court believes that the risk of theft is one of the things that makes > leaving one's keys in the ignition negligent, the court will almost > certainly conclude that X's intervening act was not superseding. > > > 1. Foreseeable negligence: The negligence of third persons may > similarly be an intervening force that is sufficiently foreseeable > that it will not relieve D of liability. [149 - 151] (Example: D is a > tavern owner, who serves too much liquor to X, knowing that X arrived > alone by car. D also does not object when X gets out his car keys and > leaves. If X drunkenly runs over P, a court will probably hold that > X's conduct in negligently (drunkenly) driving, although intervening, > was sufficiently foreseeable that it should not absolve D of > liability.) > > > 2. Criminally or intentionally tortious conduct: A third person's > criminal conduct, or intentionally tortious acts, may also be so > foreseeable that they will not be superseding. But in general, the > court is more likely to find the act superseding if it is criminal or > intentionally tortious than where it is merely negligent. [151] > > > > > "Webmaster" <webmaster@rbfcu.org> on 06/11/2001 02:01:38 PM > > > > To: "Claussen, Ken" <kclausse@columbus.rr.com>, > "'Zachary Uram'" <zu22@andrew.cmu.edu>, > "'Young, Beth A.'" <youngba@more.net> > > cc: firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET(bcc: Bill > Royds/HullOttawa/PCH/CA) > > > > Subject Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must > : read document > > > > > Ken, > To clarify, you say that if I leave my keys in the car and the door unlocked > and someone steals the car and kills someone with it, I'm partially liable? > That's stretching it a bit...I think the burden should fall squarely on the > shoulders of the person that stole the car. Please don't think that this > means that *every* situation like this is the same. But I don't think we > need to start putting the folks that can't remember to tie their shoes in > jail... > Michael Sorbera > Webmaster > Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Claussen, Ken" <kclausse@columbus.rr.com> > To: "'Zachary Uram'" <zu22@andrew.cmu.edu>; "'Young, Beth A.'" > <youngba@more.net> > Cc: <firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 AM > Subject: RE: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document > > > > ***Disclaimer I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV**** > > First I agree with the author's perspective, people should be held > > accountable for their actions, or inaction. My understanding of the > article > > was if you had the club on the car then you upheld the "reasonable > > expectation" of personal protection and therefore would not be "Held > > liable"(read negligent) in this case should a crime be committed. A better > > analogy would be to say if you left the keys in the ignition and the door > > unlocked and someone then used your vehicle to commit a "Hit and Run" that > > there is a far greater likelihood your actions would be found negligent > and > > you could be held accountable. In other words if you provided easy access > > to the "Weapon" for a third party, then you are as much as fault as the > > person who committed the crime. Hence the potential to be charged as an > > "accomplice" to a murder. Same applies to computers, if you enable "File > and > > Print sharing" and do not take measures to protect yourself, IE a Virus > > scanner and/or (IMO both should be required) personal firewall then > > essentially you have left the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked. > > Anyone for a joyride? > > > > Ken Claussen MCSE CCNA CCA > > Ken@kccweb.com > > "The Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste!" > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: firewalls-owner@Lists.GNAC.NET > > [mailto:firewalls-owner@Lists.GNAC.NET]On Behalf Of Zachary Uram > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:59 AM > > To: Young, Beth A. > > Cc: firewalls@Lists.GNAC.NET > > Subject: Re: 3rd party liability Was RE: This is a must read document > > > > > > this is silly position but understandable considering we live in > > most litigitous country in the world. > > this is analogous to saying if you don't have "The Club" on your > > car you are liable if someone steals it and commits a crime. > > > > > > > > uram@cmu.edu > > "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29 > > > > - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > > > - [To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.gnac.net with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]