Replies

1. 
   Mad_Dog | Oct 25, 1999 07:07pm | #2

   *
   AJ

   That doesn't read like "minimalist" thinking!

2. 
   Guest_ | Oct 25, 1999 08:37pm | #3

   *
   Ha! Just TRY to find me.

   It is true you can get nailed even for free advice.

   -- the knucklehead

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 25, 1999 11:25pm | #4

   *Well, I suppose some hungry, unethical lawyer could bring a nuisance suit. But matters such as consideration, elements of a contract, etc would come to the fore. Plus, could you possibly imagine anyone taking advise from someone named "adirondackJack" without first checking it out?At the risk of being a grump, what in the world are you smoking to even broach the subject?

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 04:15am | #5

   *Liability for the gullible klutz following your bad advice and getting conked with a full-on Hole Hawg is only one of the ways you could be liable from a post to this board. Another is for slander and also for saying disparaging things about certain products. For example, since I am assuming that you are not yet classified as a celebrity or public figure (close, I realize, but not quite there yet) you were obviously slandered by FredB's intimation that you might have been smoking something (given, of course, the current ill repute of the tobacco industry...)thus you could undoubtedly sue him for a few kazillion dollars for besmirching your good name and sterling reputation. (Given the general tenor of some of the posts in the past, Andrew could probably have a full time practice from slander suits on the attic venting threads alone...)Andrew or someone will have to bail me out on the other area I mentioned of bad mouthing certain products. I only vaguely remember that a shield law was passed regarding possibly certain food products. I don't remember the circumstances, but I think some people were sued by some large conglomerate. If my assumption is correct, not many people get judgements against them in these kinds of suits. However, some corporations with lots of lawyers in their stables are know to bring suits to intimate those they disagree with - and trying to defend against them, even when in the right, can bankrupt mere mortals...And since this is not my area of expertise, Andrew will also need to confirm my suspicion that signing such a waver would probably create no legal prohibitions against anyone bringing suit - just like all that fine print on the back of the receipt you get from a parking lot doesn't mean that you can't really sue them if one of their attendants decides to run your car full tilt into a brick wall... Some legal rights cannot readily be signed away, even though you may have to sign away all the checks in your checkbook to protect them...

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 04:26am | #6

   *Courts don't like slander or libel suits, which are usually about grudges. But the allegation of aj's drug habit is an insult, not libel. As I was educated a few years ago when I was worrying whether our publication might be sued, the libelers has to state or imply that he knows something other people don't, that is a factual BASIS for the slander (like 'I smelled aj's breath and...'), that basis must be false, and the libeler must be negligent. Now aj is a prominent public figure around here, so maybe the weaker recklessness/malice standard would apply. Otherwise it's just a random insult or you run into the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. This is classic law, in the real world I'm sure it's more technical. And real people never want to get sued at all, frivolously or otherwise.You may be remembering the cattlemen's lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey for her comments about beef in the wake of the E. Coli deaths (which, incidentally, results from sloppy slaughtering practices that rupture the intestines of the carcasses). What she said was pretty mild, that SHE was afraid to eat hamburger after what happened, but they sued under a Texas law that forbids "disparaging a perishable food product." She won, at great expense, I'm not sure on what basis. Carried to the extreme, the shield law is unconstitutional -- if the meat's bad, they can't gag you (ha-ha).More than you wanted to know I'm sure.

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 04:50am | #7

   *And of course if it was not intended as an insult a comment may not even rise to any level except that it may have inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. But, considering the comments that have routinely been passed between folks on this board I can't even imagine my comment would have raised anyone's pulse rate, let alone hurt their feelings.

2. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 05:41am | #8

   *Well, I have just recommended a set of rather steep "stairs" on this board that are not "code stairs" for sure, but do work best for a given situation in my humble opinion....I could just see someone in the next million years reading through the archives...builds a set for their beloved father-in-law who's other son is a web savy lawyer working the ambulance chasing routine and all of a sudden because I have accidently become a multi=millionare from selling out many editions of my "How to and to not Catch a Lobster" books on proper house envelopation.........Well....near the stream,aj

3. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 06:50am | #9

   *While we are yammering about libel and liability, I would like to only insult, not libel, our local highway department... My little 5 acre plot borders an old scenic highway. I am planning to build a fence along the highway to keep my future goats in and the dumpers of trash out. I was told that although my property line goes to the center of the highway, there is a 30 foot right of way for the utility companies to clutter up my view with all of their utility poles (individual home owners have to put their utility lines underground, but that's another story...). There is one short section where I need to move the fence over a few feet to allow me to drive around a rock outcropping. The county said that I could put my fence in the right of way as long as it was well back from the highway. Since I called the 800 number to check for buried utilities before drilling my post holes, the highway dept called to ask what I was doing. They then indicated that I could not build anything in the right of way unless I provided "adequate" liability insurance. It appears that if someone drives off the road, through a 2' deep drainage ditch, up a 4' vertical road cut, through the 12" telephone pole and several highway sign posts, and then hits my 4x4 fence post, I will be liable if it is only 14' from the edge of the road rather than 15'... (ain't bureaucracies fun...)

4. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 02:52pm | #10

   *They just want you to cover theri a** -- they're probably primarily liable for stuff within the 15' margin. If they get tagged, they want assurance that you'll be able to foot the bill when they come after you. I bet the insurance would be cheap, moving the fence cheaper.So ... would this be "liability for posting content"? Get it, posting? Sorry, I'm up too early.

5. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 03:55pm | #11

   *I had a similar situation with my local telco. As I have a hard time when someone tells me I can't do what I want to do on my own property, I did a little digging and found that the telco had no easement and put up their poles anyway. Cut to the chase, the telco had to buy the easement from me or take down their poles. I wasn't real reasonable about the price, since I don't like their damn trucks driving up into my woods, but they didn't have much choice. It was still cheaper to give in to me.I structured the easement in my favor, got my money from the telco, got a consent stipulation to keep their trucks away and lived happily ever after until one day when I found them digging a trench along my property for underground fibre optic cable. Now we're negotiating again, and they're going to have to pay all over again. Time to think of an easement as a potential profit center (and screw the utilities in the process). BTW, the telco SVP says to me, "don't you like us?" Duh?SHG

3. 
   Mad_Dog | Oct 26, 1999 08:45pm | #12

   *
   I didn't reread it, but doesn't the BT "content policy"
   cover their ass on this?

4. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 10:24pm | #13

   *
   I'm surprised they didn't find a way to condemn their way through (that's what we have, a compulsory easement ... a nice deal for the gov't because they can tax me for the land and hold me responsible for it but I can't put anything on it). Government always wants to support progress you know -- look at the wonderful cable monopolies!

   Congrats on your ingenious negotiating! Bet your phone rates double soon, and you hear strange clicking noises on the line...

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 10:38pm | #14

   *AJ: Yeah I get a bit paranoid from time to time too. But, as they say just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you:)As the intervening posts show I think we have more to worry about from our multiple governments "protecting us" than from most anything else.

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 10:42pm | #15

   *Don't worry, be happy.The Breaktime disclaimer should be much more prominent (not necessarily on every page, but linked to on every page), and should be extended to us. For the record, whenever I discuss legal issues I do so for informational purposes, not to engage in the practice of law. (See, I have to worry on two fronts! It's a cruel world.)

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 10:53pm | #16

   *Thanks, Andrew. The utility can't do condemnation, only government. But even they look like hell when they build first and try to condemn later. The way I got them was with an axe. I told them that if we didn't have a deal in a week, I was going out and cutting down every pole on my property. But I screwed up with the fibre optic cable, because I stopped them after they ran the conduit but before the cable. So I couldn't threaten to cut the cable with the axe and they ran the cable above ground around my property. I still have the continuing trespass from the trenching and laying the conduit, but lost my leverage. I still have one trick up my sleeve, but don't want to mention it here in case some slimebag from the telco lurks around here.SHG

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 11:02pm | #17

   *Oh, I was just recalling when cable first came to our Los Angeles neighborhood years ago and we were curtly informed we could not keep the cable guy off our property. (Not that we cared.) Utility poles there are often run through backyards rather than the street, which looks a lot nicer but kind of cuts into privacy.Re condemnation, here the county holds several of easements over our already tiny lot (5500 sf). Not sure how they were acquired -- these lots may predate electricity. I was under the impression the gov't could condemn property rights on behalf of the public utilities it controls & grants monopolies to. A taking, to be sure, but for public purposes.

5. 
   Guest_ | Oct 26, 1999 11:05pm | #18

   *
   Webmaster....Don't we need at the top of this page and at the entry point to this page a sign in agreement that when agreed to it says the signee will not try to collect damages that they feel were connected to a post here????

   Some day some nuckleheaded lawyer is gonna sue!!!!

1. 
   Guest_ | Oct 25, 1999 06:14pm | #1

   *If he even thinks about it we hunt him down and feed him to the dogs. Just a thought.I have gotten and used so much excellent information from the good folks here I can't even remember who to thank. But when it gets right down to it, I'm still the dude with the sawzall in my hand.......... What ever happened to personal responsibility anyway?