Hiplok: A new hipster lock

Duty,
Breach,
Causation,
Remoteness, and
Damage.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence[/ame]

If you sell someone something, and they harm themselves because of what you have sold them, if that harm was foreseeable then you may have to pay that person damages.

the fact is people in today don't take responsibility for their own actions.

I mean come look the amount of times the council get sued for someone tripping on a bit protruding rock, the council don't say "you have to take responsibility for your actions" nah they get fucking sued. Same with with (only example I can think of atm) that woman who burn't her lips on coffee and sued the fuck out of mcdonalds. ....

Interestingly I'm pretty sure my new interns brother was the lawyer who brought that McDonald's case... either that or it was suing them for making his client fat.

The thing people forget is, it all comes down to a balance, and it is about responsibly. The idea behind things like this, is that if someone accepts responsibly for something and then they fuck up and someone is hurt, then they should take responsibly for their action/inaction.

Also not everyone is the same. Should mentally disabled, blind, or just people who aren't very bright, not be protected?

I'm not having a pop at you, you've just got to ask yourself where you think the line should be drawn. Personally I think it has gone too far in some cases, but, overall making people be careful and aware of the repercussions of their actions is a good thing IMO.

Here is a good eg of the Courts saying you do have to accept some personal responsibly if you act like a muppet.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_v_Congleton_Borough_Council[/ame]