You break it you buy it - Is the person breaking obligated to pay?

Quote from Danman114 : I'd say by taking possession of your plate and breaking all your other plates with it, I am responsible for it.

Quote from Danman114 : I've made no such claim of a law. In fact, I've already said more than once that you could probably find 1 law in one part of the planet that offers the customer virtually unlimited protection, while you could probably also find another law in a different area that offers the retailer unlimited protections. And with all the other stupid, evil, or non-sensical laws on the books, I've never really been interested in argueing it (especially when the law in Mass differs from 49 other states so frequently).

Though you have in the above two bolded statements. You infer by taking possession of my plate and breaking all of my other plates with it, you are responsible for them "by law", by your actions and your words. So back up your claim with citing a source for this. You have legally told me you are responsible, so back it up with a source citing that under the "Law" you are legally responsible.

According to your statement, with witnesses at my dinner party, I could take you to Small Claims Court, and sue you for the damages; since you stated "you were responsible". Not a very smart thing to say with witnesses there. The first thing your Insurance Company tells you involving any accident, is not to admit "fault". This then makes you liable, when indeed, you were not.

Care to cite that by Law yet

Quote from Danman114 : So... you're not going to answer because anyone who doesn't have 'insurance' is 'stupid'? Do you at agree that I'd be responsible for the broken dish if i dropped it because I failed to hold onto it while I had to sneeze?

Physics causation and responsibility are not one and the same. Before I give you an examples, the relevant concept in law is called "reasonable care" or something similar. People are responsible if they are not reasonable. As long as you behave reasonably you are not responsible for damages that you might have caused.

Here is an example:

You are on a subway. The person in front of you is holding a painting. Assume it is a painting worth $100M. The subway is full and it is cramped. You sneeze and our elbow gently hits the painting. The painting is damaged and it cost $1M to be repaired. So here we have an open and shut case of causation based on physics principles. You sneezed. Your arm moved and hit the pairing. The painting is damaged. Therefore there is no question that you cased the damage. So are you legally or even ethically responsible for this damage?

So we are back to reasonable care. Unless you can prove that a person has been reckless and has not practiced readable care, that person is not responsible for any damages that he might have "caused".

Quote from Piccaboo : Though you have in the above two bolded statements. You infer by taking possession of my plate and breaking all of my other plates with it, you are responsible for them "by law", by your actions and your words. So back up your claim with citing a source for this. You have legally told me you are responsible, so back it up with a source citing that under the "Law" you are legally responsible. Care to cite that by Law yet

You added "by law" though? I cited no such.

If pressed, I guess though, I'd say I violated the natural law that you have to your person and your property. While certianly on intentional, my actions directly deprived you of your property, and as a result I would be obligated to make you 'whole'.

Quote from TRNT : People are responsible if they are not reasonable. As long as you behave reasonably you are not responsible for damages that you might have caused.

Agreed. And I would contend that dropping an item, whether it's an egg, piece of fine China, or an infant, because of a sneeze is an example of a person not taking reasonable care of a good in their posession.

Quote from TRNT : Here is an example: You are on a subway. The person in front of you is holding a painting. Assume it is a painting worth $100M. The subway is full and it is cramped. You sneeze and our elbow gently hits the painting. The painting is damaged and it cost $1M to be repaired. So here we have an open and shut case of causation based on physics principles. You sneezed. Your arm moved and hit the pairing. The painting is damaged. Therefore there is no question that you cased the damage. So are you legally or even ethically responsible for this damage?

Has the person in possession of this painting taken 'reasonable care' to ensure his painting is safe from potential damage?

I would question whether or not it is reasonable to enter a public subway with something so fragile the slightest wif would cause millions in damage.

Quote from Danman114 : Agreed. And I would contend that dropping an item, whether it's an egg, piece of fine China, or an infant, because of a sneeze is an example of a person not taking reasonable care of a good in their posession. Has the person in possession of this painting taken 'reasonable care' to ensure his painting is safe from potential damage? I would question whether or not it is reasonable to enter a public subway with something so fragile the slightest wif would cause millions in damage.

I could not disagree with anything you have said except what you have implied is the meaning of "reasonable". So we are now down to what "reasonable" means. Dictionaries use popular usage as their basis. In fact often dictionary definitions change based on common usage. Same here. It is not important what YOU consider reasonable and it is not important what I do. Reasonable like other words are defined based on common/popular usage.

I would contend that your understanding or contention as to what constitutes reasonable is out of whack. But maybe you have the same feeling about mine.

As an example, I think the SD community is more on my side than yours. You agree?

Quote from Danman114 : If pressed, I guess though, I'd say I violated the natural law that you have to your person and your property. While certianly on intentional, my actions directly deprived you of your property, and as a result I would be obligated to make you 'whole'.

Apply those 8 words to my painting on the subway example and you will end up with an absurd conclusion. (It is called reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.)

But when I gave you that example, you changed your position to match your preconceived conclusion.

Quote from TRNT : I would contend that your understanding or contention as to what constitutes reasonable is out of whack. But maybe you have the same feeling about mine.

You think it's reasonable for someone to sneeze, drop an infant (or whatever valuable good you want), and walk away blamefree saying, "Relax guys, it was a sneeze. A sneeze!"

Quote from TRNT : As an example, I think the SD community is more on my side than yours. You agree?

Tough call. I think most people who have chimed in have been more concerned with the letter of the law.

Quote from TRNT : Apply those 8 words to my painting on the subway example and you will end up with an absurd conclusion. (It is called reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.)

Well you took 8 words of out the context of a sentence, that was in the context of an example, so I would say that is absurd. I don't think it is absurd to believe you are responsible for breaking other people's property, even if you do it unintentionally.

Quote from TRNT : But when I gave you that example, you changed your position to match your preconceived conclusion.

Because you drastically changed the context. In every other example, we have the actual owner of the good in question taking responsible and reasonable care of a good, and a third party accidently breaking the good after taking possession.

Your example not only does the 3rd party not take possession, but I hardly think that the owner of the good was taking what anyone would describe as responsible and reasonable care.