XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.conspiracy, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <441711b3$0$93711$540ea2cf@novia.net>, Q   
    writes   
      
   >"banana"  wrote in message   
   >news:qFwCpiAMYuFEFwmr@borve.demon.co.uk...   
      
      
      
   >> 'Graf' indeed. You a journalist?   
   >   
   >Yes.   
      
   Freelance or staffer?   
      
   >Did you read what I wrote about liability in vehicular accidents?   
   >Because if you did, you'd understand why the points you are raising are not   
   >relevant to the money damages Fayed may have to pay.    -- Q   
      
   Do you mean this cut-and-paste job:   
      
   from:    
      
      
   ***BEGIN***   
      
   Typically, statutes regarding negligence in car accidents read like   
   this:   
      
   Liability of Private Owners   
      
   (a) Responsibility of owners for negligent operation by person using   
   motor vehicle with permission: imputation of negligence.  Every owner of   
   a motor  vehicle is liable and responsible for the death of, or injury   
   to, a person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of   
   such motor vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any   
   person using or operating the same with the permission, express or   
   implied, of such owner, and the negligence of such person shall be   
   imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages.   
      
   ***END***   
      
   'Typically' indeed!   
      
   Did you even read it yourself?   
      
   A driver wouldn't automatically be 'negligent' if he broke a speed limit   
   trying, using his best anti-terrorist professional skill, to evade a   
   terrorist attack. A person would have to be an idiot not to understand   
   that.   
      
   The employer of a driver whose drunkenness made him negligent would not   
   be sued successfully by either a bodyguard who would also have been   
   negligent, or the next-of-kin of the dead driver. And as I have said,   
   I'd find it extremely unlikely that Mohamed al-Fayed would keel over   
   before a suit by 'royal' British 'princes', not that such a suit will   
   ever be forthcoming - not least because there is no good reason to   
   believe that Henri Paul was drunk.   
      
   What's your source for that 'graf' BTW? I can only find it in the   
   context of Guam.   
      
   Yes, Guam.   
      
   You'll have to try harder to win my respect.   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)