On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:30:59 -0800 (PST), "Bobo Bonobo(R)"
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>On Dec 14, 3:24 pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:23:55 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >I've got some bread and a toaster
>>
>> >now what?
>>
>> Stick a fork in the toaster to get it out. Make sure you have one
>> hand in the sink with the water running. It should work out ok.
>
>It'd really suck if some dumbass did that, died, and his survivors
>sued you

The "law" of unintended consequences - would it be cause-in-fact or
proximate cause? You be the judge :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

What the world (and USAian juris prudence desperately) needs is a
f*ckwit clause that makes f*ckwits liable for their own stupidity. And
I'm not talking about the mentally impaired. I'm talking about those
who do something utterly stupid, ill considered or reckless then want
[a fill-in-the-blank party who was ridiculously peripheral, but the
plaintiff was just looking for the deepest/most vulnerable pockets] to
enrich them for doing something utterly stupid, ill considered or
reckless.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd...jaded litigation paralegal
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines


To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"