Tortes, then...
Jinx? If you and Dreg have been using my moisturizer again I'm going to have to rip off your scaly- hey, what's the deal with your face?
Glory ,'Potential'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
DXMachina - May 06, 2003 3:00:44 pm PDT #1229 of 10289
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Consuela - May 06, 2003 3:25:43 pm PDT #1230 of 10289
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
so tort doesn't mean of or relating to law things I don't understand?
Tort refers pretty exclusively to civil causes of action between individuals, like libel, or assault, false imprisonment, that sort of thing. That distinguishes it from criminal or contractual causes of action.
Wolfram - May 06, 2003 3:38:51 pm PDT #1231 of 10289
Visilurking
Tort refers pretty exclusively to civil causes of action between individuals, like libel, or assault, false imprisonment, that sort of thing. That distinguishes it from criminal or contractual causes of action.
Yes. A tort action is a civil action for damages based on injury caused to another. Like Consuela said, it's pretty much any civil action that dosen't arise out of a contractual or domestic relationship.
Laura - May 06, 2003 3:49:49 pm PDT #1232 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?
Wolfram - May 06, 2003 3:56:40 pm PDT #1233 of 10289
Visilurking
So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?
If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.
DXMachina - May 06, 2003 4:01:51 pm PDT #1234 of 10289
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Ouch!!!
Wolfram - May 06, 2003 4:06:22 pm PDT #1235 of 10289
Visilurking
Maybe that was a bit more than you wanted to know.
ETA: And another slutty number score. I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.
Cindy - May 06, 2003 4:08:30 pm PDT #1236 of 10289
Nobody
So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?
amych - May 06, 2003 4:09:25 pm PDT #1237 of 10289
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
considers waggling tongue at Wolf.
decides it would be safest not to.
bon bon - May 06, 2003 4:22:00 pm PDT #1238 of 10289
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.
Impressive.