Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. The scheme makes us less liable than we already are, since it shows
> that we are "trying".
Excuse me? Are you a lawyer, or have you consulted with competent
legal advisors in order to arrive at this *theory*? I suspect not,
and I suspect that you are sadly mistaken. (But IANAL.) It could put
us in the position of *seeming* to be offering legal advice, and could
open us up to accusations of misrepresentation and practicing law
without a license.
I find it touching that you have such an innocent view of the world's
legal systems, but in many cases, "trying" is worse than doing
nothing. It's a sad but true fact that if you try and fail to save
someone's life (and maybe even if you succeed), the family (or the
state) may sue you for practicing medicine without a license.
(Esp. if you happen to be in the US, where lawsuits are a Way Of
Life.)
I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, period, I'm saying we shouldn't
do this without legal consultation first. Intuition and the Law are
*often* directly opposed, so it would be foolish for us to be guided
by pure intuition here. Ignorance of the law is not a valid legal
excuse for doing something. Being earnest, having puppy-eyes, and
protesting, "I was only trying to help," doesn't cut the mustard.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
