Disclaimers

[DrFaroohk]

I am of the opinion that disclaimers, of any kind, should be 100% iron clad. Who's with me?

It seems like often they are not. In fact even the best disclaimer can get gotten around. I think that sucks. For instance, I should be able to have a clearly posted sign on my lawn - "NO TRESPASSING OR I WILL SHOOT YOU". And that should be legal. It's my property, and it's a clear warning. It's not like a random shot in the face on sunday afternoon. It clearly says a shooting will result from your trespassing, so if you choose to trespass, isn't it your own damn problem?

Or just a little sign in your store - "YOU AGREE THAT BY SHOPPING HERE YOU WILL 100% NEVER TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US FOR ANYTHING". Hey, it's not FORCING you to shop there. It's just saying that if you choose to shop there and then slip and fall, you lose the right to get anything for it. Right?

Who's with me!?

[the_std]

No. Windmil- I mean, the law does not work that way. And it doesn't work that way for a damn good reason. Only the courts get to decide where the law applies and where it doesn't, not some little turd with bristle board and a magic marker. And it should stay that way, because I don't want the average joe, people like you, creating their own little mini-laws all over the place.

[DrFaroohk]

But we're not creating our own laws. No one is forcing you to come to our store to do business. No one is forcing you to trespass on my lawn. No one is forcing you to do anything.

It's not like people are giving themselves the right to take over your house. Unless of course, the disclaimer is "If you cheat me on this poker game I'm going to come take your prized firepoker collection." And then, toiugh shit. I mean how much more obvious could it be? Your options are clearly presented to you. How can life even get any fairer than that? No exceptions, no lawyering, clearcut options right in front of you. Either do this, or do not do this.

[bara]

I would like to see a statute that prevents home owner liability if a burglar breaks in and gets hurt. Say, he breaks in is trying to steal something and cust himself on the window he broke or shoots himself in the face 5 or 6 times with a 12 gauge becuase he was triyng to steal it and it slipped.

But the sad truth is a blanket like the good Dr. is talking about would only work if people were resonable. And they arent.

I can clearly see where std is going and have to agree based on the fact that people are stupid.

[DrFaroohk]

I think std is imagining extreme examples like "I Have the right to rape your kids!". I would just like to have a sign on every piece of property I own that says "If you enter my property, I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for any damages you might possibly sustain" and also "If you ride in my car, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES in case of an accident". and one in my restaurant that says "If you eat here and get food poisoning, we are NOT RESPONSIBLE".

Or just for when your boss says "Do this incredibly complicated thing" and you say "Ok, but I've never done it, and I'm not responsible for the outcome if it goes badly."

It's still fairly simple. It's not like it's violating anyone's right, because they have the option to NOT ride in my car, NOT come to my house, and NOT eat at my restaurant.

[bara]

But thats the thing. People will be stupid about it. Let me give a very likely example of what could happen if something like this is implemented.

Kids playing ball. Ball bounces, through no ones fault, into crocthety old neighbors yard. old guys sicks dogs on/shoots kid who was doing nothing but walking over to get ball and not harming anything. Old man gets away with it because he has a sign that says "If you enter my property, I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for any damages you might possibly sustain".

Since this is something that has happened a lot already, even without signs, Id hate to give them a free hand.

Is it extreme..yes. It already happens often

Links go to seperate articles.

[DrFaroohk]

Aye, but that's because no one is allowed to do that stuff. What if it was everyday knowledge that we have to do what these signs say?

[Andara Bledin]

Since the vast majority of disclaimers actually make claims that are against the law... No. Not just no.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

No. Windmil- I mean, the law does not work that way.

I see what you did there. -.-

The inherent problem with allowing disclaimers to be so absolute is that they can and will be used to absolve everyone of any and all legal responsibility under of the guise of "Well, you agreed to it when you did x!". You don't get to do whatever you want because you put up a sign. Nor should you be allowed to wave any and all criminal negligence because you had a sign. Disclaimers must exist within the realm of reason.

Otherwise people would A) Immediately take it to extremes and B) Start trying to weasel around it. A restaurant that put up "Its your own damn fault if you get food poisoning" would go out of business pretty damn quick. So it would be changed to a little disclaimer on the bottom of the menu no one notices so that they can point to it after something happens.

You know, like companies *already* try to do right now.

[Kaylyn]

Wait. "If you eat here and get food poisoning, we are NOT RESPONSIBLE."

So, I'm just curious. If they get food poisoning because you've been slack on your food safety, and undercooked that chicken that just happened to be teeming with salmonella, you're not responsible?

Nope. Don't think so. If I knew I could trace this back to your establishment, you better believe I'm holding said establishment responsible.

[DrFaroohk]

Well duh that's the point of the disclaimer. It's giving you fair warning that you could very well get food poisoning.

What was with the Windmil joke?

[HYHYBT]

Why *shouldn't* there be the limits there are on such things? If anything, there is already too much that you can be forced (not *quite* literally forced, but in the practical sense) into signing away. Particularly, think of employment. No, you don't *have* to let potential employers go through your credit history... but almost nobody will even consider hiring you unless you do let them, and we all need to work someplace. You have a right to sue for damages... except your employer can make signing away that right in favor of arbitration of their choosing a condition of employment, and most if not all banks and such do the same if you want an account.

But mere signs giving you license to shoot or poison people? How could that *possibly* be a good idea? (Seriously. Why would anyone even suggest such a thing?)

[jackfaire]

I would like to see a statute that prevents home owner liability if a burglar breaks in and gets hurt. Say, he breaks in is trying to steal something and cust himself on the window he broke or shoots himself in the face 5 or 6 times with a 12 gauge becuase he was triyng to steal it and it slipped.

Sure I will personally sign a petition when someone can prove that has ever actually happened.

[Andara Bledin]

There are already laws on the book that limit homeowner liability in the case of someone hurting themselves during the commission of a crime, provided that the homeowner did not arrange things to increase the danger to the intruder.

Because, sometimes, you want a stranger to break into your house, and it's inadvisable to create a situation where somebody doing so in the course of their duty (firefighter, gas technician, paramedic) gets hurt because a you're too paranoid to really be out among society.

^-.-^

[bara]

Sure I will personally sign a petition when someone can prove that has ever actually happened.

Ill assume you are talking about thie shotgun part?
(thats me being sarcastic, sorry it doesnt always translate well over the interwebs)