It Will Be Interesting To See What Canadian Laws Are Like Regarding Safety Standards Applying To Commercial Vehicles
Without knowing what Canadian laws are, it's hard to know whether a criminal negligence standard applies. My guess is that in the US certifications would have been needed to turn an experimental vehicle into a commercial enterprise.
woodguru wrote:
Without know what Canadian laws are, it's hard to know whether a criminal negligence standard applies. My guess is that in the US certifications would have been needed to turn an experimental vehicle into a commercial enterprise.
They operated in international waters where one wasn’t needed.
Rose42 wrote:
They operated in international waters where one wasn’t needed.
Interesting technicality...
I'm wondering if laws would apply to the country of origin that the thing was built in...there are going to be some complicated technicalities here for sure...certainly valid claims about the negligence involving people's lives, customers not test personnel.
woodguru wrote:
Interesting technicality...
I'm wondering if laws would apply to the country of origin that the thing was built in...there are going to be some complicated technicalities here for sure...certainly valid claims about the negligence involving people's lives, customers not test personnel.
Its been reported that they signed waivers that their families wouldn’t sue in the event something went wrong.
Rose42 wrote:
Its been reported that they signed waivers that their families wouldn’t sue in the event something went wrong.
But...in the absence of full disclosure that they had refused to commission a dome rated for the depths they needed to go to that would be a waiver breaker. There is a reasonable expectation that it was built to understood safety standards.
This would be like a car manufacturer like Porsche that was having customers of their hottest and most tricky car to drive, the old Turbo Carreras, sign waivers to keep them from being sued as had been happening...and putting tires rated to 110 mph on a car that could do 185 mph. That substandard equipment rated component would render the waiver dead in a heartbeat.
Waivers protect against known risks that the customer is being made aware of, and there is no awareness that they were negligent because they were too cheap to use the right parts.
woodguru wrote:
But...in the absence of full disclosure that they had refused to commission a dome rated for the depths they needed to go to that would be a waiver breaker. There is a reasonable expectation that it was built to understood safety standards.
This would be like a car manufacturer like Porsche that was having customers of their hottest and most tricky car to drive, the old Turbo Carreras, sign waivers to keep them from being sued as had been happening...and putting tires rated to 110 mph on a car that could do 185 mph. That substandard equipment rated component would render the waiver dead in a heartbeat.
Waivers protect against known risks that the customer is being made aware of, and there is no awareness that they were negligent because they were too cheap to use the right parts.
But...in the absence of full disclosure that they ... (
show quote)
We’ll see. These days its a given to sue even though all the information was available beforehand and they went anyway.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.