So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?
Buffy: How was school today? Dawn: The usual. A big square building filled with boredom and despair.
Buffy: Just how I remember it.
'The Killer In Me'
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!
Laura - May 06, 2003 3:49:49 pm PDT #1232 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
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.
Wolfram - May 06, 2003 4:24:16 pm PDT #1239 of 10289
Visilurking
Impressive.
And you can use that on the bar. Provided it fits the fact pattern, and you're insane.
bon bon - May 06, 2003 4:28:39 pm PDT #1240 of 10289
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I'm not sure duty of care fits up there in a positive tort, but I always had trouble putting together the elements of a tort. I'm impressed you still can.
Wolfram - May 06, 2003 4:35:12 pm PDT #1241 of 10289
Visilurking
Nah, I made all that up. The most important things to remember about the practice of law is to write with conviction and always cover your ass. ;)