02-26-2021, 10:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2021, 10:09 AM by danbrotherston.)
(02-26-2021, 09:05 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(02-25-2021, 10:48 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The article said they had a concern about its durability outdoors, and whether people would climb it (liability concerns). It sounded like they really wanted to make it work but could not.
The liability concerns one is irritating. To be clear, I assume Regional staff know what they are doing when they make that assessment; but in a sensible liability regime, putting the statue on a 1m plinth with unobtrusive signs at the bottom saying “no climbing” should be enough to absolutely eliminate any liability. The current liability regime is not good at requiring people to take responsibility for themselves.
To be clear, the current liability regime neither forces social responsibility nor individual responsibility. It exclusively normalizes the harm in society right now and enforces it as the norm and protects against change. I.e., A city employee can run you over with their car when installing the statue, because that's normalized, but putting up a new statue is a risk, because something MIGHT happen, that is different from before.