What
I don't understand is:
People walk dogs on the street and if dog bites someone you can
get sued, so it's O.K.
However, if I keep dog to protect my house, like many people do, the
dog is supposed to bark and it's quite possible to bite the intrude (it's
almost expected from poor dog). Can he sue me then? There are thousands of
such homes protected by the dog ,although that's not always a prime reason
for
having a dog.
If
it's O.K. for dog to chase and bite the intruder (you cannot train dog to
bark
only or to tell the robber to go away), what's the difference having snake
or
some other potentially dangerous animal.
Again, if that's O.K. what's the difference having animal or some
other
mechanism of self defence. Where to draw the line?
Also, on the building site where someone is using explosive, you
have
visible warning signs and you have a warning siren before the explosive is
lit. If someone walks into dangerous zone, despite all the warnings,
sirens,
people trying to stop him, and he gets hurt, can he sue them? I suppose not
-
he'll be considered lunatic, or wanting to get hurt.
So
what's the difference there, if you put all the warning signs, put siren
and
announcements and someone still gets into your house. Why he can sue you
then
for being hur?. Why he would not be considered lunatic?
Just
thinking aloud...
Nik