On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:08:22 -0500 Kevin Mark <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > some folks see the idea of suing bar owner or gun owners and wining > damages as liberal justice. Well, I'm a bar owner, so I have to chime in ;) The concept of making the bar owner responsible for the actions of patrons is interesting. There are certainly laws on the books in some jurisdictions (US, anyway) that DO make the bar owner responsible. So called dram-shop laws make the bar owner responsible if their patron gets too drunk and ,for example, goes out and kills someone. In fact there is insurance to cover such things.... The practical side to it is that the bar owner has to learn to strike a balance between maintaining total, absolute control over the situation and maintaining a fun, relaxed and hopefully profitable atmosphere. How do you do this? Well, you set a staffing level that provides enough surveillance without breaking the bank and hope for the best. obviously training and policy come into play as well. The reality is that one CANNOT plan for, nor handle, every eventuality. One must make a reasonable, responsible effort to maintain control. In the unfortunate event that something DOES go wrong, one must first take responsibility for the fact that something happened. Examine internally whether anything could have reasonably been done about it, and then either defend oneself or accept full liability. The question there is what is reasonable. This same logic applies to many other things as well, including file-sharing and the use of peer-to-peer networks. What is a reasonable amount of effort to prevent piracy? If one has made that reasonable effort are they really responsible for those who find a way around those efforts? Now, having jumped into the middle of a conversation about which I know nothing... I"ll crawl back under my rock. A -- Wandering OT since 1970.
Description: PGP signature