Talk:Res ipsa loquitur/Archive 1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by 190.39.82.107 in topic Exclusive control requirement
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Exclusive control requirement
Your example is wrongful, causes the formation of a con, where attention is moved from the cause to an effector that has nothing to do with the corporation itself.
I) Mechanical failure.
You will have to proof negligence in breach of duty in maintenance, which in your example you apparently refuse to do, presuming to cause a public no thought required popular putz.
The court refuses your statement and moves to have you disbarred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.82.107 (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)