|
|
|
|
|
by Nasrudith
1100 days ago
|
|
Really this case is a "don't whizz on the electric fence" law. That is the law isn't for anybody rational and remotely intelligent. We know that most people don't whizz on electric fences, but the preventable damage done by those stupid enough to do it without the law is a certainty, and having the law makes things smoother. The question "Did they offer the required water breaks." is easier to answer than "Were they negligent?" even if they are synonymous in this case. |
|