"Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com> said:
This is why, for instance, the maker of a knife can't be arrested because the knife is used to kill someone instead of cutting bread. The law is actually reasonable.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I recall some years ago when bartenders were getting convicted for their patron's drunk driving accidents. One can't always count on laws being reasonable, and if they are, you still can't always count on courts interpreting them reasonably. Doug
Doug Merritt says:
"Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com> said:
This is why, for instance, the maker of a knife can't be arrested because the knife is used to kill someone instead of cutting bread. The law is actually reasonable.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I recall some years ago when bartenders were getting convicted for their patron's drunk driving accidents.
Most states have laws that specifically assign liability to bartenders for serving intoxicated patrons. That is why they are liable in this instance. The rule does not generalize, however. A supermarket is not liable for the heart attack that an overweight patron gets from eating too much ice cream, for instance, since there is no law specifically altering the default legal rules to assign liability in such an instance.
One can't always count on laws being reasonable,
Thats true, but in this instance they are not unreasonable. Perry
participants (2)
-
doug＠netcom.com -
Perry E. Metzger