Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
That is a terrible analogy. It would be the equivalent of expecting someone to pay for kicking up a rock and cracking your windshield.
|
How does that make sense.
I'm going to guess that you think someone doing the rear ending should pay for the damages, and that the person kicking up the rock shouldn't right?
But if you think that from my analogy of rear ending someone it logically follows that kicking up a rock should also pay, then that implys that you think there is an equivalent level of culpability on the part of the rear ender and the rock kicker upper. Which clearly isn't the case becasue you think one should pay and one shouldn't.
I'm basing my position on the responsibility of each party.
The home owner: put themselves into a position where there is potential for damage
Guy who got rear ended: put themselves into a position where there is potential for damage
Guy who got window chipped: put themselves into a postion where there is potential for damage
Seems the same to me.
Now for the other side.
Golfer: voluntarily chose to partake in an activity where through their own carlessness caused damage to someone else
Rear ender: voluntarily chose to partake in an activity where through their own carlessness cause damage to someone else
Rock kicker upper: this one is debatable. They clearly put themselves into a position where they could cause damage to others, but others would say kicking up rocks is an unavoidalbe consequence of driving, where as carelesslly rear ending someone is not.
Let's say you don't think the rock kicker upper has the same level of culpability. Then it doesn't logically follow that my analalogy suggest the rock kicker upper should pay, and your objection to it doesn't make sense.
Let's say you think the rock kicker upper is culpable. Then the level of responsibility of the three is the same, and since I assume you agree the rear ender should pay up, then one of the following is true:
1) You should logically conclude that since the three are equivalent situations all three should pay
2) You don't think the rock kicker upper should pay, and thus are not logically constent, and your arugment about the rock kicker upper is completely irrelevant