2 ms·
> It might just be a liability issue... basically, by warning people to stay inside during a declared natural weather crisis, they won't have to pay when peopl
by tivert 3y ago
> It might just be a liability issue... basically, by warning people to stay inside during a declared natural weather crisis, they won't have to pay when people ignoring that go outside and get injured by a falling tree or whatever.
Even in America, I can't imagine someone suing the city because they got injured during a storm, let alone winning their case and making the city pay.
The real story was someone got killed by lighting, and the city decided to "do something" so that never happened again. However, IMHO, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot because their citizens are going to be less prepared for a tornado, which could kill many more people.
- mschuster91 3y ago> Even in America, I can't imagine someone suing the city because they got injured during a storm, let alone winning their case and making the city pay. In Germany, you absolutely can. It's called "Verkehrssicherungspflicht". Given how Americans can get sued by a random child wandering onto their property and injuring themselves on a trampoline or a swimming pool, even if the area is fenced off, I assumed that liability for natural disasters would be just as insane.