From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: NA Laws (Was: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170435.3861@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:

>In article 19276@netcom.com, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct4.181513.28037@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:

>>>You do not have absolute rights on your own property for many good reasons.

>>I'm not asking for absolute rights.  I don't want to strew cyanide-laced
>>candy bars in my front yard, but I do want the right to an uncovered pool
>>in the back yard without fear that someone's trespass will get me in
>>trouble.

>The difference seems to be one of degree, not one of principle.
>
>Perhaps you think that your intent makes a difference, that if you intend to
>not to do any harm (by having a swimming pool) that your obligation is somehow
>less than if you do intend harm (cyanide candy bars).  While this may be 
>something in your favor, it doesn't change your obligation to the community
>to protect children from harm, whether intentional or not.  The attractive
>nuisance laws are specifically directed (in my opinion) to things which are
>not intended to harm, but which do inflict harm through negligence and inattention
>of the owner. 

You've stacked the deck in favor of your argument.  I don't accept that
an uncovered pool is either negligence or inattention.

>>>In your story, the driver did stop, although perhaps a foot too late.  
>>>The officer wrote up a ticket for jaywalking, which seemed reasonable.  
>>>Are you claiming that the fact that the person was jaywalking made the
>>>driver somehow less obligated to avoid hitting him or somehow less obligated
>>>to stop?  

>>C'mon, you know the answer;  *intent* is key in this situation.

>Yes, see above.  It shows that your story has NO relevance and no parallel
>to attractive nuisance laws.

I related the story because someone inaccurately pointed out that
a driver would always be held responsible in a pedestrian accident.
The relevance is that a negligent pedestrian doesn't have the ability
to get an innocent driver in trouble, but a trespasser can do that to
a property owner.

>>What if the car had run over the boy's foot and then continued
>>>on without stopping?  I'd presume that the officer would have attempted to
>>>cite the driver for leaving the scene of an accident or hit-and-run.

>>Yes, but for the "run," not the "hit".

>How would you know that?  I'd wager that the driver would be cited on 
>multiple charges.

Yes, but if he wasn't held responsible for the accident when he stayed,
why would he be if he left?  The charges would probably include hit-and-run
(felony at that), leaving the scene of a crime, and some others, but I
don't expect he'd get nailed for the accident per se.

>>>You seem to hold it to be very significant that the driver was not cited.
>>>Two points: (1) It may have appeared to the officer that he followed the law 
>>>and his obligation, there may not have been anything to cite him for.  
>>>(2) Police officers have significant latitude in whether to issue a citation
>>>or not; another officer might have cited him for reckless operation or other 
>>>infractions. 

>>I think that had you saw the accident for yourself, you'd realize that
>>it would be a rare cop that would scratch the driver in this case.

>So?  What realtionship does this have to attractive nuisance laws?
>How does one isolated traffic accident relate to a principle of protecting
>children from hazzards in the community?

I already explained that above. 

This part of the thread really is beginning to drift.  Can we let it drop?
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Xref: sparky ba.general:4219 misc.kids:25299 misc.legal:18173