|Viewing Single Post From: Tuesday, December 11th Daily Discussion|
|esp13||Dec 11 2012, 06:33 PM|
The pit bull thing depends on where you live. Some states have strict liability on the grounds that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. Other states/cities still maintain a negligence standard, where it must be proven that you failed to take the steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the harm. The forest fire thing is the same way, generally speaking. If you were negligent in tending the fire/putting it out/etc., you can be liable for the destruction caused by the spread of the fire.
Strict liability exists in criminal conspiracies. That's why they big question in how much Gabi is criminally liable depends on when the conspiracy ended. For example, if two people plan to commit a robbery and one guy does it while the other stays home, the person who stays home is equally liable. But if the guy who commits the robbery then decided, independently, to commit a second robbery on his way home, the guy who stayed home is not criminally liable for the second robbery. In this case, if the conspiracy ended with Andrew kidnapping Gabi, then so does her co-conspiracy liability.
As for the rest, I'm not convinced they are letting all of the rest of it go. But, if they are, I agree that, from a moral standpoint, Gabi should face the heat from many people. My only point is that I don't think she should face jail time for Jack and Madison's deaths.
|Tuesday, December 11th Daily Discussion · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion|