So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?
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!
considers waggling tongue at Wolf.
decides it would be safest not to.
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.
Impressive.
And you can use that on the bar. Provided it fits the fact pattern, and you're insane.
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.
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. ;)
My favorite legalese is "Upon information and belief".
My favorite legalese is "Upon information and belief".
We use, "upon knowledge, information and belief." Because we get paid by the word.
::coughNattercough::
So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?
Tonguetwisting is subject to several of the same statutes, so stop speaking so silly!
The non-nattery part of my post got posted in Bureaucracy instead.