The best image I have ever seen.

Turtle

By determining whether the issue is already covered by existing law.

Although in today's lawsuit-happy society, it seems like most people generally cover their butts rather more than is necessary anyway...

glennmagusharvey

But you just said that there shouldn't be regulations governing that in the first place.

glennmagusharvey

So how should issues that aren't covered by existing law (which would be all of them, if there are no regulations governing this) be settled in court?

Turtle

Not specifically, but that doesn't mean that some cases wouldn't break existing laws.

glennmagusharvey

What sorts of cases are these?  Can you give examples?

(Also, I'm going to bed so we'll continue this discussion later.)

Turtle

Probably when the unintended effect could be expected to occur, but the consumer has no way of knowing it, while the producer has at least reason to suspect it could.

So something like a consumer's buying a computer that, gives off dangerous radiation (yeah, I know, hilariously sci-fi, but) - while the brand is completely safe 99.9% of the time, this one isn't, for whatever reason.

If it could be proved that the producer knew that such a defect was possible but didn't provide fair warning, then the producer should be found guilty and be made to compensate the poor mutant for his medical costs.

glennmagusharvey

Okay, but where's the legislation that would actually make this possible?  Or are you just going to rely on common law and hope that the judge/jury comes to what you and I would agree is a most sensible decision?  Because one could argue that this business negligence ought not to be regulated, because there's no constitutional provision mandating that it be.

Bob

-thread hop-

How the hell did this happen?

snowbull

I refuse to look at the first page to find out how this derailed.

Turtle

Okay, but where's the legislation that would actually make this
possible?  Or are you just going to rely on common law and hope that the
judge/jury comes to what you and I would agree is a most sensible
decision?
If there isn't a law against bombarding people with radiation then maybe there should be.  Seems like something to look into.

Because one could argue that this business negligence ought not to be
regulated, because there's no constitutional provision mandating that it
be.
I didn't ever say it should be regulated.  I said that because it wouldn't be Constitutional to regulate it, it needs to be up to the courts to decide whether any laws have been broken (not sure what poisoning a man with radiation counts as... assault?).

glennmagusharvey

Well, for starters, traditional common law does need quite some updating to deal with things like radiation poisoning.

And second, what about environmental protections?  What if one person's, say, backyard shoe leather shop uses chemicals that stink up his/her neighbor's outdoors, lowering quality of life and property value for the neighbor?  How should that be dealt with?

Turtle

Well, for starters, traditional common law does need quite some updating to deal with things like radiation poisoning.
The principles involved, though, say that radiation poisoning is just as unacceptable as any other poisoning.

And second, what about environmental protections?  What if one person's,
say, shoe leather business uses chemicals that stink up his/her
neighbor's outdoors, lowering quality of life and property value for the
neighbor?  How should that be dealt with?
It shouldn't.  Not by the government.  Not unless there is actual physical harm being done by the fumes.  But life's being a bit more unpleasant for the guy isn't the government's concern.  That's kind of like the Mayor calling the Power Puff Girls to open a jar of pickles for him.  Actually, it's a lot like that, because he's abusing their power for something other than protecting the people from harm.

glennmagusharvey

The neighbor's property is losing value due to the stink.

This isn't bodily harm, sure, but can the neighbor sue for damages if the first person doesn't stop stinking up the place?

If so, on what basis will the suit proceed?

And for that matter, once we involve a lawsuit, the law is involved.  And law is just a manifestation of government.

Turtle

This isn't bodily harm, sure, but can the neighbor sue for damages if the first person doesn't stop stinking up the place?
No.  Leather guy has every right to do what he wants on his own property.  And it's entirely possible for two people to reach an agreement without the government's help.

glennmagusharvey

And what if they don't?

Also, but the stink extends to the neighbor's property as well.  As I noted, it's affecting the neighbor's property's value.  Are you saying that leather guy has every right to not care about what his actions inadvertently cause to his neighbors?

GLORIOUSLeader

I refuse to look at the first page to find out how this derailed.

The picture I posted had something to do with the Tea Party, etc.