From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:40:26 -0500
George Hakim wrote:
>>Charles O Greenlaw wrote: An EOR violating the building code is negligent
This is true, however the plaintiff still must prove that this violation
actually AND proximately caused the damages complained of. Negligence per se
simply proves that the EOR had a duty and had breached that duty. The rest of
a negligence analysis must be proven by the plaintiff. You can be proven to
have breached a duty, but if your acts did not proximately caused the
damages, you are NOT liable.<<
Not being a lawyer, I probably don't understand the subtleties of the law,
but it is my understanding that:
1. A person cannot be held liable for stupidity.
2. There is a difference between *gross* negligence and *simple* negligence.
A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
P.S. Bear in mind that things have been explained to me (more than once)
regarding Arizona law, not California law, and I claim absolute stupidity
about either one!