Coincidence versus legal responsibility

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

[(RIP) PLANK]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

i am completely lost, is it an episode of Star Trek? :nenau

[solarman216]

I think it would largely depend on whether the out side "attack" was accidental or intentional, Rick

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

trying to avoid personal thoughts rather analytical driven by emotion.

[solarman216]

trying to avoid personal thoughts rather analytical driven by emotion.

Now you are getting heavy:nenau Rick

[wildbri]

well it wan't me. I never touched it!

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

the issue is a chain of events that were more than unlucky coincidence
where even if they had all been there in another sequence the outcome
might well not have been so grave.

so if you have an accident ok even incident because you shoulder some
blame to start without how far down the line are you responsible for the
design of the stuff you have then come into contact with, which is as far
removed from your world as you are from its.

[(RIP) PLANK]

it would also depend on ones point of view - may be glass half full or half empty. In other words do you see the attacker as the issue or the person failing to protect from attack - are you on the inside or the outside?

as the attacker you would probably think - it's their own fault for poor security!

and to be honest, if this has happened before and steps have not been taken then maybe the responsibility does lie with the person responsible for the system.


is that a better answer?

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

thanks plank, thats just what ive thought.

duty of care, even to 'kin trespasser.

if you dont make it resonably difficult to prevent
an attack, or a botched attack causes injury the
owner is responsible.

ok taking another view, first time its an animal, animal
dies, cant prosecute dead or alive animal, probably
farmsers fault then despite system owner not taking
steps to prevent...

second case numpty comes along, ok guilty of stupidity
or something. is is then responsible for all the hell that
breaks loose in the system too.

[lacroupade]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

OK so lets try and make some better parallels.

Lets say its an internal computer system that manages some process or other. Its been subject to some external attack thats caused a minor problem, but sounds like there is the potential for it to be attacked again perhaps with worse consequences for equipment or people.

Well clearly the 'fault' is initially with the attacker. But once the owner of the system is aware of its vulnerability then if that vulnerability is able to cause physical problems for its usres then they have a duty to address the problem, if they don't then they almost certainly have liability.

Make sense?

[solarman216]

You can only be held responsible for direct results of your actions, not 1st or more generations of them, throw a stone in the water if it hits a fish and kills it you are responsible if you aimed for the fish, if it happened to swim under your stone it was an accident, if the ripples from the stone cause some other problem then only if it can be shown that you knew those ripples would cause that problem would you be responsible, hope this helps, Rick

[lacroupade]

You can only be held responsible for direct results of your actions, not 1st or more generations of them, throw a stone in the water if it hits a fish and kills it you are responsible if you aimed for the fish, if it happened to swim under your stone it was an accident, if the ripples from the stone cause some other problem then only if it can be shown that you knew those ripples would cause that problem would you be responsible, hope this helps, Rick

ahhh Grasshopper. :lol

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

So what if that risk is then driven by efficiency. perhaps tested but not aggresively
in the past. If the 'gain' in economy is built around a 50/50 so is possibly safer
one way than the other but the usage is equal in both states.

perhaps the technology used was fine in safer state when used that way all the time
and the reverse mode was fine in controlled testing within the closed system and
seemingly no thought given to what if. guess rolled out to bring costs down asap,

oh this could be corporate negligence...

[solarman216]

So you throw a hand full of stones instead of one! I think that if you hit and killed a fish you would be responsible, as it is much more likely a fish will be in the way of such a spread, Rick

[lacroupade]

So what if that risk is then driven by efficiency. perhaps tested but not aggresively
in the past. If the 'gain' in economy is built around a 50/50 so is possibly safer
one way than the other but the usage is equal in both states.

perhaps the technology used was fine in safer state when used that way all the time
and the reverse mode was fine in controlled testing within the closed system and
seemingly no thought given to what if. guess rolled out to bring costs down asap,

oh this could be corporate negligence...

I woiuld agree with your conclusion.:)

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

thanks guys,

so in my best rolf harris, can you tell what it is yet, go on have a guess I sense
some itching!

[Adz]

JACE ..... :augie Way to obvious...

[solarman216]

I am no good a guessing games, go on tell us, you know you want to, Rick

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

JACE ..... :augie Way to obvious...


wow thats amazing Adz.

But wrong,


like more thoughts on corporate responsibility into designing into something a fault
or safety issue just to save money?

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

I am no good a guessing games, go on tell us, you know you want to, Rick

ok a green oval was involved!

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

DVT Mk4 weight 43.7 tonnes

A Driving Van Trailer (DVT) is a purpose-built railway vehicle that allows the driver to operate a locomotive at the opposite end of a train. Trains operating with a DVT therefore do not require the locomotive to be moved around to the other end of the train at terminal stations. Unlike many other control cars, DVTs resemble locomotives (specifically Class 91) and thus when the train is operating in "push" mode it does not appear to be travelling backwards. The vehicles have no passenger accommodation due to rules in place at the time of building that prohibited passengers in the leading vehicles of trains that travel at more than 100 miles per hour (160 km/h).

Courtesy of Wikipedia


Fill this void with traction equipment producing 6700hp (Class 91) and the weight rises to 81.5 tonnes!

[Deleted account DD]

Far too secret squirrel for a friday evening + bottle of red :doh

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

ok to the landrover add an ifor williams trailer and a renault savanah

[Deleted account DD]

Courtesy of Wikipedia




Did you know universities etc discount wikipedia as a credible reference and quotation source :D

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

Did you know universities etc discount wikipedia as a credible reference and quotation source :D
by how much as a %age though, this discount ?

[solarman216]

OK I have to admit that 2 bottles of good claret down the line I am totally lost, good luck to this thread, Rick

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

Great Heck Crash,

landy drifts off M62, Gary Hart prosecuted for sleep at wheel, ends up on railway.

the lighter of the 2 ends of express train hit landy derail, stay up right then are
deflected by a turnout, (point) into path of 1700 tonne coal train.

10 die, 10th anniverary just.

so he is a numpty, nothing to stop him getting on railway barring a fence.

possibly 82 tonne of loco pushing the train wouldnt have skipped off track.
definitely doubt the 126 tonne loco hauling the coal train would have derailed.

hence how responsible can you be for a chain of events.


he was guilt of something, dangerous driving. so if coal train which did derail
due to passenger train debris had gone into the cottage of the garden it did end up
in and kill more, then for good measure got the president with the nuke remote
and that had been fired... ok getting silly but how far one person be scapgoated?

btw was a cow in 80s under and earlier driving carriage that kills about 15 as i
recall, but with the shoving loco leading at 117 tonne, well it'd be strike up
the bbq i reckon.

[solarman216]

OK I do not have the knowledge, re railway locos, but one guy falling asleep at the wheel can certainly have the results that we see, but does that make him directly responsible? well yes if you look at from one direction, but no from another, we have to accept in this word we live in today that Newtons law of every action has a reaction is not always in tune with his law, one guy goes to sleep at the wheel and crashes killing his passenger, is he any more or less guilty than the guy who as a result happens to go down an embankment and take out a train, how close to falling asleep have you been? I am an ex professional driver with well over a million miles on my clock and have to say I have always recognized the warning signs, and pulled over to recover, and now at 63 I limit my journey time to 4 hours, were before I, like my mates would have done 12 or more with 32 ton up any where in Europe, Rick

[Adz]

Way to involved for a Friday night / Saturday morning :doh :augie :lol

I much preffered my answer :augie :lol :lol :lol

[felixthelogchopper]

Did you know universities etc discount wikipedia as a credible reference and quotation source :D

We had to edit a section on Sealand in the first year of LLB :rolleyes:

[4wheel]

If there is a lock and the burglar breaks it to gain entry he is guilty of breaking and entering. The quality or size of the lock does not come into question. If there is a fence around a property and someone climbs over it to gain access then that is trespass.So,to my simple mind,if there is a security system and someone deliberately makes an effort to gain access then that is a form of burglary or trespass. Particularly if wilful damage has been caused.Ok,so may be over simplified but the basics are sound. However, saying that, if you leave your keys in the ignition and your car is nicked that is negligence - but if the car is locked then that is theft !
:nenau

[Kamsin]

In Law a chain of events will be traced back to the first cause, if the first cause was him falling asleep IE, if he had not nothing would of happended then he will be at fault.
If the chain of events would of still happended had he not fallen asleep then he would of been found not guilty. Its not the job of the railways to stop your car getting on to the track, its yours to keep it on the road.

I heard a case of a drunk driver that apart from being over the limmit had done nothing wrong, he was on the right side of the road doing under the speed limmit, fully taxed, insured and MOT Ect. He was hit by another car that was speeding. The drunk driver was the one that was charged as the judge said and i quote "If you had not been driving your car due to drinking the accident would not have been able to happen"
Now before you all say, well he should not of been driving, he was only just over the limmit. Some thing that could catch any of us out if we have a quick beer before going home.

Now there was a point i was trying to make, but i forgot what it is now :doh