|
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
in any event, not bad for an engineer. Technically though, its a little harder than that; to prove negligence, one would have to prove: (1) there was a duty owed by the government to the people, (2) that the government was supposed to act under a certain standard of care (reasonable person standard most likely), (3) by not acting in that standard the government breach the duty owed to the people, (4) the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury, (5) the government should have foreseen that its conduct would cause the injury, and (6) there were damages.
It would be difficult to prove that the government's conduct was the actual cause of the injury.
btw...intent is not an element of negligence. If the government intended to destroy the buildings it is no longer negligence, it becomes an intentional tort. |
the biggest problem i would see is establishing a reasonable standard of care owed by the government as i dont think any government in history has set a great prescedent.....
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine? |
|