Domain: onlinelawyersource.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to onlinelawyersource.com.
Comments · 8
-
Re:Why we'll never solve distracted driving
By your logic, school buses should be the biggest hazard on the road. They account for fewer than 0.33% of accidents.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/bus/statistics.html
Well that's airtight. Surely there are no other factors, such as driving skill, relative number of school buses on the road, peak driving times for school buses, the fact that they are giant and yellow, or the fact that they are mobile stop signs.
-
Re:Why we'll never solve distracted driving
How is that any different than a guy and his girlfriend in the car having a fight, or some selfish schmuck stuffing themselves on McDonalds because they can't wait 5 minutes to get to work? There are more accidents caused by eating while driving than any other activity (upwards of 80%).
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/19/2009-07-19_eatdrive_sure_recipe_for_a_crash.html
They should really attack the biggest problems first, no pun intended. People stuffing their face causes more accidents than drunk driving. It's also disgusting because it makes your car stink simply opening the bags in there. My brother's car smells like a KFC that hasn't been cleaned in a couple of weeks.
When my kid acted up in the car, I pulled over and solved the problem. He hasn't done it since
;-)The bottom line is you have to drive with your kids in the car sometimes, you don't need to drink, eat, smoke, text, talk on the phone and fight with your girlfriend in the car. Discipline is up to each parent. I agree that some people do stupid shit in their cars with their kids in the back screaming. Other people, like me, don't have the problem in the first place.
By your logic, school buses should be the biggest hazard on the road. They account for fewer than 0.33% of accidents.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/bus/statistics.html
-
43 healthy children? Or 43 total children?
It makes a difference. All forms of influenza are devastating to an ill child. We must assume that some ill children have been exposed to H1N1 by now. So, which is the case:
1) All 43 were ill
2) None of th 43 were ill
3) Some portion of the 43 were ill
Also bear in mind that this is only about twice (possibly trending towards three times) as deadly as using school-buses:
"Approximately 27 school aged children die in school bus accidents every year." http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/bus/statistics.html
The 1918 pandemic was certainly something that we do not wish to see repeated. However, it was deadlier than this situation on the order of millions of times more.
Please stop scaring people. Please?
-
Re:Wierd
Well, entrapement is a criminal defense, not a civil one, besides "Entrapment situations alter the risks and benefits to increase the likelihood the crime will occur.", which I don't believe they are.
-
Re:IANAL...
Actually, in many places verbal contracts *are* binding, as long as they meet certain criteria. See the following for some details.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/contract/verbal. html -
As someone who has Adult ADDRitalin causes the same heart problems when taken over long periods. I have a friend who is 31 who has to take heart medications and all he ever did was drink coffee and take ritalin. Not an illegal drug user at all.
I use strattera for my adult ADD and I no longer drink 4-6 cups of coffee a day. My heart at rest is 70 bpm and my blood pressure is normal. Strattera has its own counterindications but they are far less severe.
-
AOL can be held liable
It's called vicarious liability. This trial will be a jury trial, which means it basically comes down to litigation. If she's got a good enough lawyer, she has a chance. That's the beauty of a jury of your peers.
-
Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me...
If that's the case, and assuming this developer actually didn't have any legal rights to this code, it seems to be like Google shouldn't be liable unless this company can prove they used the code knowing it was swiped
IANAL
Sure they should. Google profits from the actions of its employees, so Google should be held accountable for the actions of its employees. It isn't fair to society to let a company profit from employee actions, but not be held liable for them.
If Google was a shipping company, and one of their trucks crashed into somebody's house, Google would be held responsible for the damage, even though it resulted for the sole actions of one of its employees.
The principle is reffered to as vicarious liability.
It is Google's responsibility to ensure that the actions of its employees are legal. It is a cost of doing business.