Disappointed. (1 Viewer)

[Phantom Warrior]

And no one will accuse you of malfeasance.

Well first you'd have to explain to people what malfeasance is; I've been waiting all week long to use it in a conversation, but the opportunity hasn't presented itself just yet...........:wink2:

In the case described by George, it's misfeasance not malfeasance. :rolleyes2:^&grin

 

[jazzeum]

In the case described by George, it's misfeasance not malfeasance. :rolleyes2:^&grin

They are actually different. Malfeasance connotes a wrongful act whereas misfeasance refers to an act that is improperly performed. Malfeasance is wrongful ab initio whereas misfeasance is more in the nature of negligence.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

They are actually different. Malfeasance connotes a wrongful act whereas misfeasance refers to an act that is improperly performed. Malfeasance is wrongful ab initio whereas misfeasance is more in the nature of negligence.

Malfeasance is giving advice or taking an action that will intentionally cause harm.
Misfeasance is intentionally giving the wrong advice or taking a knowingly inappropriate action.
Nonfeasance is to intentionally withold advice or take no action (neglect)

 

[jazzeum]

Didn't know you went to law school. Guess you must have been sleeping during torts :wink2: There is a difference between neglect and negligence by the way.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Didn't know you went to law school. Guess you must have been sleeping during torts :wink2: There is a difference between neglect and negligence by the way.

Difficult as it was, I was awake for Torts which is possibly the most difficult area of law but very important in real estate, property management and receiverships -the field of my career.

Neglect and negligence are synonyms. Negligence comes from the Latin neglegentia, meaning carelessness. Neglect comes from the Latin neglectus, meaning to make light of or disregard. i.e. A leaking roof. It is negligent to do a poor repair that causes the roof to collapse while it is neglect to ignore the leak which eventually causes the roof to collapse.

I'll leave it to you to figure out if your post was negligent, neglectful, or both. :wink2:^&grin

Terry

 

[jazzeum]

You may have been awake but apparently non compos mentis at the time.

Neglect is in the nature of failing to take an act where there is a duty to do so. Negligence is where you take an act but do not carry out in accordance with expected standards. There is quite a difference.

 

[OzDigger]

No doubt there is some variance between countries, for example in Australia 'Neglect' is usually applied to people and 'Negligence' to things.

 

[theBaron]

As to a sprinter who crosses the finish line, this thread appears to have run its course.

 

[jazzeum]

Actually, Terry and I had fun with this -- kidding each other and such -- and we both agreed that we had no disagreement with each other. He is further correct that Torts is not an easy course. It's a constantly evolving field.

One of the first things we learned in Torts is duty: what duties does a person have to another. Statute and case law provide for certain duties, e.g., parent to child. What about other duties? Early on, the Professor gave the situation where you're walking on the beach and you see someone drowning. Do you owe a legal duty to help that person. As I recall, the law says no. However, if you decide to help the person, you have undertaken a duty where none had been and having so undertaken, you must discharge it in a non-negligent way. If you're negligent, you can't later argue that you can't be liable because you had no duty to help the person.

This was the Professor's way of introducing us to the concepts of duty and negligence.

 

[Warrior]

Early on, the Professor gave the situation where you're walking on the beach and you see someone drowning. Do you owe a legal duty to help that person. As I recall, the law says no. However, if you decide to help the person, you have undertaken a duty where none had been and having so undertaken, you must discharge it in a non-negligent way. If you're negligent, you can't later argue that you can't be liable because you had no duty to help the person.

I'll try to remember that the next time I'm walking along the beach and I see someone drowning; by the time I figure out if I should help him or not, a shark will have come along and made my decision for me.

And speaking of sharks, this thread jumped one a long time ago, we've gone from why don't wheelies turn to people drowning............

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I'll try to remember that the next time I'm walking along the beach and I see someone drowning; by the time I figure out if I should help him or not, a shark will have come along and made my decision for me.

And speaking of sharks, this thread jumped one a long time ago, we've gone from why don't wheelies turn to people drowning............

We never left the topic. The question of wheels turning being of little value while contributing to catastrophic risk (rolling off a table and smashing) goes directly to the heart of nonfeasance on the part of the manufacturers.

And as for rescuing people, many jurisdictions have statutes requiring people to help to the limit of their ability. In Canada, we are required by statute to help put out forest fires provided we are physically able to do so, would not be exposed to undue risk, and would not take us away from other duties that would pose a risk to the public. And people who help are protected by "Good Samaritan Laws"

As for whether a shark comes along is irrelevant as in Brown v Charlie the Tuna (1968) Supreme Court of Canada 42

Terry

 

[Warrior]

In Canada, we are required by statute to help put out forest fires provided we are physically able to do so, would not be exposed to undue risk, and would not take us away from other duties that would pose a risk to the public.

So as a citizen of Canada, you're required by law to help put out forest fires if able?

So at what point do you get a bucket, hose, shovel and helmet in the mail courtesy of the Canadian government, when you turn 18?

Note to self; cross Canada off of the list of "Countries I'd think about moving to one day."

 

[Mitch]

I am sure somewhere people will be saying you could not make this sh** up!!!!LOL
Mitch

 

[Phantom Warrior]

So as a citizen of Canada, you're required by law to help put out forest fires if able?

So at what point do you get a bucket, hose, shovel and helmet in the mail courtesy of the Canadian government, when you turn 18?

Note to self; cross Canada off of the list of "Countries I'd think about moving to one day."

It's right in the statute that you are required to use whatever tools are at hand including your own, or a neighbours, etc.

Here is an excerpt from the statute for Ontario. And it's not some 100 year old law - it was revised in 2007.

7 of Ontario's Forest Fire Prevention Act (2007):

"For the purpose of controlling and extinguishing a fire, an officer may use any privately-owned equipment and may employ or summon the assistance of every able person over the age of eighteen, except persons providing essential services and persons physically unfit, and on private lands may take such action as he or she considers advisable to control and extinguish a fire."
​

Terry

 

[jazzeum]

Considering all the legal advise you've gotten on this thread George, I will be looking for a credit on my next order. Heck, you might wind up owing me money {eek3}

 

[uksubs]

Actually, Terry and I had fun with this -- kidding each other and such -- and we both agreed that we had no disagreement with each other. He is further correct that Torts is not an easy course. It's a constantly evolving field.

One of the first things we learned in Torts is duty: what duties does a person have to another. Statute and case law provide for certain duties, e.g., parent to child. What about other duties? Early on, the Professor gave the situation where you're walking on the beach and you see someone drowning. Do you owe a legal duty to help that person. As I recall, the law says no. However, if you decide to help the person, you have undertaken a duty where none had been and having so undertaken, you must discharge it in a non-negligent way. If you're negligent, you can't later argue that you can't be liable because you had no duty to help the person.

This was the Professor's way of introducing us to the concepts of duty and negligence.

Well I found it interesting :smile2:

 

[ExRanger]

I'd first like to start off by saying thank you to Brian for responding to my post.Forced travel plans prevented me from responding earlier.I corrected the wheels issue with superglue. I do like the piece very much and decided I would just fix it myself.I do appreciate Brian's offer of returning the piece but decided I would just correct the issue myself.

 

[kilted vampire]

Lasalle can help set you up {sm4}

View attachment 133311

A simple lip across a shelf keeps them on the shelf.

 

[kilted vampire]

I'd first like to start off by saying thank you to Brian for responding to my post.Forced travel plans prevented me from responding earlier.I corrected the wheels issue with superglue. I do like the piece very much and decided I would just fix it myself.I do appreciate Brian's offer of returning the piece but decided I would just correct the issue myself.

I would expect nothing less from one of the Armys' finest!