[TowerTalk] Action against US Tower?
jimlux at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 6 16:36:00 EDT 2006
At 08:33 AM 6/6/2006, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
>Another thing they do to avoid liability is say that the tower must be
>installed by a professional.
And who's to say what "professional" means. It's not like there's some
governmental agency licensing tower installers as such(notwithstanding that
there's a fair amount of government regulation of one sort or another
covering tower work, as an occupation.) Is it someone who's carrying
liability insurance? Someone who has a contractor's license (which
essentially means they've got insurance)?
>They used to have a loose network of installers
>who knew how to install and maintain the tower. Don't know if they still do.
>If you install it yourself and claim injury or damage occurred due to lack
>of documentation, they would probably point to disclaimers saying the tower
>is designed to be installed only by professionals.
but that disclaimer, as has been pointed out, is probably worthless in a
lawsuit. You can't really disclaim liability for defects, except in some
fairly special cases. (all that "implied warranty of merchantability and
fitness for use" stuff.) More to the point, in the event of a disaster,
there's a sort of dance of the attorneys as everyone jockeys for position
until the case settles. Rarely would it go to court, where the
disclaimer's validity would actually get tested. What having an (insured)
professional installer in the mix means is there's at least one more party
in the dispute.
More information about the TowerTalk