"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:31:22 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
::


Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act
constitutes theft.

I think it relates to establishing culpability for the flight.

Even if there were some legal culpability on the part of the owner, that
would not diminish the culpability of the person who took the plane.

If a person drowns in a pool with an unlocked gate, I believe the
homeowner can be held responsible even if the person was an intruder.

I'm not attempting to assert that this statute is directly applicable
in this case, but it seems to establish some responsibility on the
part of attractive nuisance owners to prevent unauthorized use.

Perhaps. But even if there is some legal responsibility on the part of the
owner, it has no bearing on the question of whether the taking of the plane
constituted theft. (Yet that was the question in response to which you
posted your speculation about the attractive-nuisance culpability.)

--Gary