Subs = Chattel?

[DVS]

Are there many kinds?


I thought they just give you a suit and a briefcase upon graduation and you just start suing people.

and that's when the rest of us bring in what we hope is a sufficient amount of cement to do the job.

 

[bg23]

If a tort is committed against a submissive party, who is eligible to receive damages; the sub or the owning Dominant?

If an intentional tort is committed by a submissive party, who is the responsible party?


I say subs are essentially chattel, devoid of volition other than the transposed intent of their Dominant party, and conversely any damage done to them may be claimed only by the Dominant, at his/her discretion.


Any dissenting opinions?

in the eyes of the law?

i don't believe there is any longer a provision whereby a wife can belong to her husband as a slave - let alone a provision for submissives and dominants.

in the eyes of the law, the submissive, being of age to sue and receive damages in compensation for a tort being suffered, will be the one who will receive said damages.

slavery isn't legal.

 

[bg23]

I think these laws would hold binding precedent for any case involving a sub.

irrelevant. dogs cannot sue, and the law recognises ownership of dogs as property under the law. in the event that your dog is injured, you may claim compensation as property.

submissives are human beings who the law will not recognise as being your property, even should that slavery be voluntary. you cannot claim for damage to property. if there is any claim to be made, it will be made my the submissive, who is a person in her own right under the law (provided she's of legal age).

should you then, still hold that she's your property, and any compensation she receives should be given to you, that matter will be settled between yourselves.

 

[bg23]

I think these laws would hold binding precedent for any case involving a sub.

also, with regard to personal responsibility, dogs and humans are not the same thing.

dogs are regarded as property. if your property damages another, that's your responsibility.

another human being is not.

if low intelligence and mental illness is no defence in tort law, then the mere fact that you have a dom is certainly not going to excuse you from liability.

doms cannot claim responsibility for another's actions any more than parents can for their grown children.

 

[bg23]

having said all that, i'm sure you're quite well aware of the law as it stands and this is simply something of your quaint idea of an amusing thread idea, no doubt not at all inspired by any inclination to remind us all that you're a law student...

thanks for the opportunity to take a look at an perspective on slavery and personal responsibility in torts. bdsm is given so little consideration in tpl.

 

[DVS]

I guess we need more cement.

 

[Killishandra]

having said all that, i'm sure you're quite well aware of the law as it stands and this is simply something of your quaint idea of an amusing thread idea, no doubt not at all inspired by any inclination to remind us all that you're a law student...

thanks for the opportunity to take a look at an perspective on slavery and personal responsibility in torts. bdsm is given so little consideration in tpl.

You're a bitch. Go get laid or something and stop fucking up other peoples' threads with your petty attempt at patronizing wit.

 

[Marquis]

Why do you do this to yourself BG?

 

[chris9]

I guess we need more cement.

I really don't get the cement idea... Would you mind explaining?

 

[graceanne]

also, with regard to personal responsibility, dogs and humans are not the same thing.

dogs are regarded as property. if your property damages another, that's your responsibility.

another human being is not.

if low intelligence and mental illness is no defence in tort law, then the mere fact that you have a dom is certainly not going to excuse you from liability.

doms cannot claim responsibility for another's actions any more than parents can for their grown children.

He was just joking!

 

[DVS]

I really don't get the cement idea... Would you mind explaining?

Come on, now. You all can't tell me I'm the only one who knows that joke. I'm sure, if you look at a web site that has lots of jokes about things, such as dumb blonde jokes, Polish jokes, lawyer jokes, Irish jokes, etc., it has to be there.

Then again, maybe it's an old joke, and because I"m getting old, I've heard it. This group does seem to be kind of young... I wonder if some are even 18.


EDITED TO ADD:

First site I googled and it was the first joke.

Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in wet cement?
A: Not enough cement.

OK, don't bitch at me...it isn't my joke. You can't even sue me...you don't know who DVS really is.

 

[chris9]

Come on, now. You all can't tell me I'm the only one who knows that joke. I'm sure, if you look at a web site that has lots of jokes about things, such as dumb blonde jokes, Polish jokes, lawyer jokes, Irish jokes, etc., it has to be there.

Then again, maybe it's an old joke, and because I"m getting old, I've heard it. This group does seem to be kind of young... I wonder if some are even 18.

Could also be that I'm in the wrong countrey and language to know it

 

[DVS]

Could also be that I'm in the wrong countrey and language to know it

No, that isn't it, I don't think. I had at least one lawyer type ask me what I meant, too. And, don't they have lawyers in your country? They're all the same, you know.


Hey, what's happened to the smiley things? They've shifted, and the one I always use is on the second page. Can I sue somebody over that? Maybe I'll get a bone chip or something because I have to click the mouse so many times to get to it.

 

[DVS]

He was just joking!

I think so, too. But, it's sometimes difficult to catch the humor when the correct smiley isn't there.

I've had that happen to me, before. Even added a line to my sig line, because of it.

 

[babiesmiles]

I've never heard that joke as well ...and believe me I've heard a lot of jokes about lawyers b.

 

[chris9]

No, that isn't it, I don't think. I had at least one lawyer type ask me what I meant, too. And, don't they have lawyers in your country? They're all the same, you know.


Hey, what's happened to the smilie things? They've shifted, and the one I always use is on the second page. Can I sue somebody over that? Maybe I'll get a bone chip or something because I have to click the mouse so many times to get to it.

Yes, we do have lawyers (in that I'm similar to Marquis, only I'm almost done with university). I don't really think you can sue Lit for shifting the smilies, not even in the US, where it seems to be possible to sue everyone for everything.
So it isn't the countrey thing that makes me prevent understanding the cement, but you could be right about the age. (Yes, I am older than 18 ) So, would you mind explaining it to a youngster who still wants to know?
Especially if it's a joke about lawyers... I have sort of professional interest!

 

[DVS]

Yes, we do have lawyers (in that I'm similar to Marquis, only I'm almost done with university). I don't really think you can sue Lit for shifting the smilies, not even in the US, where it seems to be possible to sue everyone for everything.
So it isn't the countrey thing that makes me prevent understanding the cement, but you could be right about the age. (Yes, I am older than 18 ) So, would you mind explaining it to a youngster who still wants to know?
Especially if it's a joke about lawyers... I have sort of professional interest!

I'm sorry. I edited my post above, but didn't tell you that I did.

Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in wet cement?
A: Not enough cement.


And as for suing Lit...what about this sceneario? What if when I move my mouse to go to the second page for the smiley I want to use, I spill my very hot coffee into my lap? Can I sue Lit for something? Come on, now...I need some money.

 

[chris9]

I'm sorry. I edited my post above, but didn't tell you that I did.

Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in wet cement?
A: Not enough cement.


And as for suing Lit...what about this sceneario? What if when I move my mouse to go to the second page for the smiley I want to use, I spill my very hot coffee into my lap? Can I sue Lit for something? Come on, now...I need some money.

In Germany most certainly not as your own stupidity would be the cause. I can't imagine it would be possible in the US, but they did some sueing where I just can't believe any court bothers (I'm thinking of a case where someone bought a speedy car, drove too fast, lost control and died. When the family sued they received some great big money, because the seller or producer or such didn't warn that the car can go that fast. )

 

[bg23]

You're a bitch. Go get laid or something and stop fucking up other peoples' threads with your petty attempt at patronizing wit.

still his lap dog, i see

He was just joking!

so?

it's a hypothetical

i like hypotheticals

as i did point out, duh, it's a joke

but why shouldn't i post in seriousness if it appeals to me?

Why do you do this to yourself BG?

do what, precisely?

the posts in seriousness? simply replies to your thread topic.

the last post? simply a bitchy jibe because, as killsbraincells pointed out, i'm a bitch. and i think you're an arrogant prat.

do what, precisely?

 

[Marquis]

Precisely; humiliate yourself.

How, you ask?

Shall I count the ways?

 

[Haku_Z]

If a tort is committed against a submissive party, who is eligible to receive damages; the sub or the owning Dominant?

The submissive party - although if the tort is negligence then there is a possibility that there will be no damages awarded.

If an intentional tort is committed by a submissive party, who is the responsible party?

Definitely the submissive. Or the guy wearing the banana suit.

I say subs are essentially chattel, devoid of volition other than the transposed intent of their Dominant party, and conversely any damage done to them may be claimed only by the Dominant, at his/her discretion.

So it can be said... though devoid of volition in a sub - not in my experience.

 

[FLButtSlut]

If holding to subs as chattel,

Tort against sub must be pursued by dominant (as in tort against dog pursued by owner of dog)

Intentional tort commited by sub against 3rd party, dominant responsible for damaged caused by sub (as in dog biting 3rd party, owner responsible)

if subs are "devoid of volition other than the transposed intent of their Dominant party" dominant is responsible for everything subs does, as if dominant had personally directed sub into said actions.

While the dominant party could choose NOT to pursue a tort against his/her sub, the dominant does NOT have the discretion to determine whether or not to pursue when it is the dominant's sub who has intentionally committed tort against third party as it is the third party's discretion to pursue or not to pursue said tort in that case.

UNLESS of course, third party is also a sub, in which case it is third party sub's dominant who then must pursue said intentional tort against his/her property.

 

[Haku_Z]

though, said actions, aren't against the will of said sub/(s) - so responsibility of the tort goes to the sub/(s). If against the will, then responsibility of the tort goes to the dominant.

But it's just a lot more fun if everyone gets blamed.

 

[Marquis]

If holding to subs as chattel,

Tort against sub must be pursued by dominant (as in tort against dog pursued by owner of dog)

Intentional tort commited by sub against 3rd party, dominant responsible for damaged caused by sub (as in dog biting 3rd party, owner responsible)

if subs are "devoid of volition other than the transposed intent of their Dominant party" dominant is responsible for everything subs does, as if dominant had personally directed sub into said actions.

While the dominant party could choose NOT to pursue a tort against his/her sub, the dominant does NOT have the discretion to determine whether or not to pursue when it is the dominant's sub who has intentionally committed tort against third party as it is the third party's discretion to pursue or not to pursue said tort in that case.

UNLESS of course, third party is also a sub, in which case it is third party sub's dominant who then must pursue said intentional tort against his/her property.

Excellent brief!

Love the name too. We can never have enough buttsluts in FL.

 

[Aeroil]

Excellent brief!

Love the name too. We can never have enough buttsluts in FL.

hahaha.