2000 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Kutak_R@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Fences at UXO sites
Dan has correctly stated the concept of attractive nuisance. The problem
is that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the sovereign
immunity of the United States on a stricy liability theory. In other
words, you have to prove negligence, among other things. Because the
United States is not going to liable in tort for an ultrahazardous
activity, it may actually be cheaper to do nothing, whereas the private
sector would not take such a risk because of the financial exposure.

> [from "Uyesugi, Daniel - AEPI" <DUyesugi@aepi.army.mil>]

You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 


If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: 

T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics

  Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] New contractor report on Utah chemical agent release
Next by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] Eastern Stakeholders' LUC Forum Draft Agenda
  Prev by Thread: Re[2]: [CPEO-MEF] Fences at UXO sites

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index