At 02:58 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote:

It's called "strict liability" -- you are liable when you didn't know. The economic justification is that you were in the best position to avoid the harm (either by doing some checking, or, in this case (they, not I, would say) not offering the service at all.

Vague memories of Law School... Doesn't strict liability apply to "inherently dangerous activities." Like using explosives to demolish buildings or something. Is carrying message traffic an inherently dangerous activity? Any strict liability situations today not involving inherently dangerous activity? I suppose having disposed of waste in a "Superfund Site" leads to automatic liability but does not necessarily involve an inherently dangerous activity. Is this a "strict liability" situation? I'm trying to think of other sorts of examples. DCF "If we're so poor these days, why do we have more of everything?"