Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44463)	7/28/2010 7:11:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I think what we have wandered into is the differences between explicit assumptions of risk & potential liability from damages caused by accidents and implicit assumptions of risk and potential expenses.... No. Even an implicit assumption of risk is a separate action from the cap. It may be a more likely and/or more direct result of having the cap, but its still a separate thing. It would still be separate even if it was inevitable, if you had a magic gun that never missed, aiming and pulling the trigger would still be distinct from the bullet hitting the target. And in fact it isn't inevitable, and in some situations isn't even likely.