Re: Pet policy | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Diana Carroll (dianaecarroll![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:04:37 -0700 (PDT) |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> wrote: > > Best way to stay out of court, therefore, is to do nothing. Ever. If that worked, no one would ever get sued for "negligence". > In most cases, no citizen, HOA, church, whatever, has any responsibility at all for enforcing the law on other parties. Is this a legal opinion? Because this does not concur with my observation. It isn't a matter of "enforcing a law on other parties"...it is preventing other parties from breaking the law on your property. You needn't stop your neighbor from growing pot on his lawn, but you sure need to stop him from doing it on yours. Diana
- Re: Pet policy, (continued)
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy R Philip Dowds, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy RPD-Comcast, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 25 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.