Are there laws, covering umbrella tip designs, or, eye injury hazards in public, to reduce the possibility of eye injuries in public? Are there laws, covering umbrella tip designs, or, eye injury hazards in public, to reduce the possibility of eye injuries in public ? In the European Union In the U.S. In the U.K. Usually, umbrella tip designs seem to vary from tiny metal balls on the tips, to slightly large plastic safety tips on the ends. I assume there are no umbrella tips which are actually spike shaped, however, I am not sure. - In my opinion, a legal requirement for slightly large rounded plastic safety tips on the ends (well fixed) would be an ideal law, although theoretically, any umbrella tip design could cause an eye injury at the right speed and angle. I think that maybe in previous eras like the 1960's, it may not have been totally rare for people to be admitted to emergency rooms for eye injuries caused by umbrella tips. However, my internet searching for current day statistics got me no results. What if someone makes or buys an umbrella which has 'very prominent' metal spikes on the tips, and blinds someone, are there any laws covering this. (Obviously, it is not just umbrellas that are noticeable eye injury hazards in public, there are a lot of things, however, on rainy days, for 'some' people, getting from point a to point b can take them more that double the time due to umbrellas. Stringent laws on umbrella tip designs, or, outlawing umbrellas in favor of shower jackets and rain hats and rain goggles could be given consideration, however, since I cannot find any statistics on eye injuries from umbrellas, I don't know what sort of validity this would have.)
european-union united-kingdom There are laws about consumer product safety that are not specific to umbrellas. In the EU, and including the UK for the time being unless its laws diverge, the framework is given in the General Product Safety Directive of 3 December 2001. Its preamble notes that It is very difficult to adopt Community legislation for every product which exists or which may be developed and so the Directive exists as a catch-all for products that aren't specifically covered elsewhere. As there is no Umbrella Tips Directive, here we are. The UK implementation was the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Some children's umbrellas will be covered by the Toy Safety Directive of 2009 instead, and in the UK that is the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011. The GPSD regime is quite general and its definition of a &quot;safe product&quot; is to be interpreted in the context of its marketing, likely uses, accompanying instructions, likelihood of degradation over time, and so forth. The TSD does have some more specific rules, such as that protruding points and edges of toys should be designed so as to reduce the likelihood of injury as much as possible. But this too is subject to contextual interpretation, and there is no direct rule saying how spiky the spikes can be, for example. Note that regarding umbrella safety, it's not just about the pointy bits. Ribs may be sharp, and catch fingers when the umbrella is being folded Spring-loaded mechanisms may cause the umbrella to unfold violently The fabric may be toxic If the handle is hard to grip, then it might blow out of my hands and injure somebody etc. If there are your proposed safety balls on the end of the ribs: They could fall off to leave an even sharper fixture than in conventional umbrellas They could be unscrewed and swallowed by a child They could shatter into little pieces when I accidentally whack the umbrella against a wall, and the little pieces might get in my eye etc What I mean to say is that it's not just about requiring a particular mechanism, but there are all sorts of things to think about in how the requirement is phrased. All of these are already implicitly dealt with by the current safety regime. Moreover, it can be adapted to changing technology and circumstances more easily than if it were fixed in primary legislation. So it is, with respect, not completely obvious that a law about umbrella tips would do the job better than the existing regulatory situation.
Your right to have your horse not be killed is not a consumer right. &quot;Consumer rights&quot; are rights that you only have because you are a consumer. The issue described in the question is not about consumer rights. The sign tells you that there are risks connected to using the car park (obviously because there are lots of cars driving around, there might even be car thieves), and you accepted these risks. It doesn't give the shop permission to do anything they like. Instead of a horse, imagine a shop worker walking around with a hammer and smashing windscreens of cars; that sign isn't going to protect them. But a shop worker collecting trolleys might accidentally bump into your car, and the sign might protect them in such a case. I'd say spraying chemicals strong enough to kill a horse shouldn't happen at all (I suppose these chemicals could also kill a human), and definitely not when there is actually a horse present. To me, it's closer to the employee with a hammer than to the employee with shopping trolleys, so a court should find the shop liable.
Normally, making a poison is not in and of itself a crime. If a third party took the poison from the person who manufactured it without their knowledge, the manufacturer would generally not have criminal liability, at least in the absence of "gross criminal negligence" such as leaving the poison manufacturing location totally unsecured and letting people know that there was poison there for the taking. In a civil case, someone might sue the poison manufacturer for negligently securing their facility, but again, that would be a real stretch if even ordinary precautions (e.g. standard locks on doors and cabinets) were in place, or if it was an inside job theft. In the same way, a gun store owner is not usually liable criminally or civilly if someone steals a gun from his store and shoots someone with it. The police could certainly charge Person A with capital murder mistakenly believing him to have intended to kill and did kill someone with the poison, which would make the critical factual point establishing that Person B gave it to someone without Person A's knowledge. Person A might still be guilty of attempted murder if he intended to kill someone (not necessarily the person who was killed) with the poison but had not fully carried out the plot when the poison was stolen. Some places probably require a permit of some kind to make poisons, and if Person A didn't have a permit, he could probably also be charged with making poisons without a permit.
england-and-wales s161 Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance, Highways Act 1980 ... (3) If a person plays at football or any other game on a highway to the annoyance of a user of the highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F3 level 1 on the standard scale]. ... (See also the s137 offence of wilful obstruction.) Some places may also have their own related bylaws, e.g. No person shall on any land adjoining a street play any game in a manner likely to cause obstruction to any traffic or to cause danger to any person in such a street Made under s235 of the Local Government Act 1972, for the prevention and suppression of nuisances. Traveling further back in time, the Highway Act 1835 provided for penalties on persons who &quot;play at Football or any other Game on any Part of the said Highways, to the Annoyance of any Passenger or Passengers&quot; and, in London, the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 similarly made it an offence to &quot;any Kite or play at any Game to the Annoyance of the Inhabitants or Passengers, or who shall make or use any Slide upon Ice or Snow in any Street or other Thoroughfare, to the common Danger of the Passengers.&quot; I find such a claim implausible, considering the large amount of my childhood that was spent playing in the street with no legal problems. It seems possible that the authorities turned a blind eye or your behaviour didn't come to their attention, or your street was designated as a 'play street' (introduced by the Street Playgrounds Act 1938, currently provided for by sections 29 to 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991). Also, many alleged offenders might be younger than the criminal age of responsibility. According to TJ Miller MP (Colchester) in Hansard, speaking in 1860, in 1859 44 of London's children were sent to prison for playing games in the streets, and by April 1860 25 had been sent to prison - apparently Manchester had imprisoned none. In my youth we played in the street although we didn't put up basketball hoops, football goals or other such objects. These stories in the media seem to be rare and involve circumstances where the local authority received too many complaints, particularly when there is damage to homes, cars or flowerbeds - which may amount to criminal damage. Blackpool in 2006 Glenfield area of Leicester, 2007 Newark, Nottinghamshire, 2008 Manchester, 2010 - although this seems to be based on one complaint Hat-tip Pedestrian Liberation for the information about the older legislation and arrests of children.
Why would this be a concern? The adults have some duty in an elementary school setting to monitor the children in the restroom in any case. Separate restrooms are an employee perk, not a liability driven decision.
I think that the language In consideration of permission to use, ... Recreational Sports Department ... arising from, but not limited to, participation in activities, classes, observation, and use of facilities, premises, or equipment. would be read as limiting the waiver to cases in some way connected with the RSF. Even so limited it is rather broad, and may not be enforceable. In particular public facilities are not always allowed to obtain a waiver of otherwise valid negligence claims. If it were interpreted to mean "all claims on any matter, even ones having nothing at all to do with the RSF" then I think it would be so broad as to be unenforceable as unconscionable, and as misleading, so that there was no meeting of minds.
If we go by Indian case law (as we should), you have to find a way. The relevant case is K.P. Adbul Gafoor v. New India Assurance Ltd, where appellant drove on a motor cycle on a learner's permit without a licensed driver positioned correctly, in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, and smacked someone. The bulk of the case is about the insurance and liability consequences of violating the rule: the main point here is that the court deemed this to violate the rules.
In the United States, different jurisdictions have different rules about what topics may be addressed in cross examination. In the federal courts, Fed. R. Evid. 611 generally discourages cross examination on matters not addressed in the direct examination, although it also permits questions on &quot;matters affecting the witness’s credibility.&quot; So if a witness is asked on direct examination only about whether A stopped at the intersection before B crashed into him, the cross examination probably shouldn't go into questions about how severe the injuries were, what the weather conditions were, etc. But the court should allow cross-examination on whether the witness is the plaintiff's sister, or whether the witness was previously convicted of perjury. (Despite the rule, the court has a great deal of latitude as to how to handle these questions, practically speaking.) In the state courts, the rules may be different. In Ohio, for instance, Rule 611 is roughly identical, except that it generally allows questions on &quot;all relevant matters.&quot; So now the questions about the weather and injuries are fair game, along with the questions about the witness's credibility. In any event, the questions will remain subject to the other rules of evidence, so questions about sexual history might be excluded by the rape shield, and questions about irrelevant matters should be prohibited, as well.