From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:37:25 +0800
To: Michael Froomkin <weld@l0pht.com>
Subject: Re: Crypto Exports, Europe, and Conspiracy Theories
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960125213709.006da5ec@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:58 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote:
 
>It's called "strict liability" -- you are liable when you didn't know.  
>The economic justification is that you were in the best position to avoid 
>the harm (either by doing some checking, or, in this case (they, not I, 
>would say) not offering the service at all.

Vague memories of Law School... Doesn't strict liability apply to
"inherently dangerous activities."  Like using explosives to demolish
buildings or something.  Is carrying message traffic an inherently dangerous
activity?  Any strict liability situations today not involving inherently
dangerous activity?

I suppose having disposed of waste in a "Superfund Site" leads to automatic
liability but does not necessarily involve an inherently dangerous activity.
Is this a "strict liability" situation?  I'm trying to think of other sorts
of examples.

DCF

"If we're so poor these days, why do we have more of everything?"