patergentium/wellspring
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update 15-01-non-ameliorable-harmful-activity.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
wellspringcp
2021-09-09 14:42:01 +10:00
committed by GitHub
parent 8f25735cf9
commit 96ccabce34
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
15-torts-and-coordination/15-01-non-ameliorable-harmful-activity.md
View File

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ The defendant shall have a good defense if it can prove, concerning the harms wh
- That the defendant has informed said 3rd parties of the harm and they have consented to be exposed to the harm (volenti non fit injuria). - That the defendant has informed said 3rd parties of the harm and they have consented to be exposed to the harm (volenti non fit injuria).
- That the defendant is undertaking said activities while maintaining at the ready, a provable method of *fully* reversing 3rd party harms should they occur. - That the defendant is undertaking said activities while maintaining at the ready, a provable method of *fully* reversing 3rd party harms should they occur.
#### Experimental defense: #### "`Experimental Activity`" defense:
Furthermore, `WS` allows `NAHA` to be conducted on newly discovered entities/processes/substances whose properties are not well known, and on already discovered entities/processes/substances in new environments where their behaviour is also not well known. In such situations the defendant would be carrying out experiments while seeking to understand the potentially new behaviours, and may not have a means of reversing projected harms. In such a situation, the defendant is allowed to supply as a defense, a demonstration under a legislatively defined burden of proof (this constitution suggests that the burden be "_beyond reasonable doubt_") that the location and facilities where these activities are being carried out are: Furthermore, `WS` allows `NAHA` to be conducted on newly discovered entities/processes/substances whose properties are not well known, and on already discovered entities/processes/substances in new environments where their behaviour is also not well known. In such situations the defendant would be carrying out experiments while seeking to understand the potentially new behaviours, and may not have a means of reversing projected harms. In such a situation, the defendant is allowed to supply as a defense, a demonstration under a legislatively defined burden of proof (this constitution suggests that the burden be "_beyond reasonable doubt_") that the location and facilities where these activities are being carried out are:
- Sufficiently remote and well-isolated from populated areas so that should any leakage or escape of the entities/processes/substances occur, there will be no risk of them influencing populated areas and private property. - Sufficiently remote and well-isolated from populated areas so that should any leakage or escape of the entities/processes/substances occur, there will be no risk of them influencing populated areas and private property.
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Note that this cause of action can only be invoked against the actor(s) who is/a
## `SovCBIO` containment, decomissioning and destruction: ## `SovCBIO` containment, decomissioning and destruction:
Where the defense supplied by a defendant is that the activity is in such a remote, well-isolated and well-secured location or facility that even in the absence of a method of fully reversing the harms, the harms can be contained; all such activities are subject to the oversight of the `SovCBIO` branch and: Where the defense supplied by a defendant is that the activity is in such a remote, well-isolated and well-secured location or facility that even in the absence of a method of fully reversing the harms, the harms can be contained (i.e, the "Experimental Activity" defense; all such activities shall be subject to the oversight of the `SovCBIO` branch and:
- The court shall order that the remote location be well fenced off and that clear signs be put up to warn stray conagents to take necessary caution. - The court shall order that the remote location be well fenced off and that clear signs be put up to warn stray conagents to take necessary caution.
- The undertaker of the `NAHA` in such a remote facility must: - The undertaker of the `NAHA` in such a remote facility must: