In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:

Minimally meeting regulations is not always enough to prove reasonable
precaution.

No, not with the sad state of the US judicial system.

While I am not generally in favor of the way the US judicial system
seems to encourage people to sue, I don't see this particular
principle as a problem. If you can remove responsibility by meeting
regulations, then you need regulations to cover pretty much all
possible circumstances, and you end up with much more legislation than
you really want.

If you require some personal responsibility and common sense on top of
regulations, you can end up with similar (potentially better) results,
with greater freedom overall.

or you end up with endless second-guessing and hindsight that isn't
20-20.

If the regulation isn't good enough, then don't bother with the
regulation.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like