>
> Not a lawyer, so I can't cite case law.
>
> So, I now need to recant my statement that the disclaimer would provide
> some measure of protection, as it clearly failed in this case. However, I
> would also think it disproves your assertion that "you can't sue someone
> because you read something," as it certainly occurred here.
>
> People who aren't doctors shouldn't practice medicine. People who aren't
lawyers shouldn't interpret legal claims.

You aren't comparing apples to apples. You can (in theory, it's actually
quite hard) be sued if you give someone advice on how to do something, but
your advice is wrong. Someone who follows that advice can sue on the
grounds of negligence. In order to be successful, you have tho show that
the person that provided the material owed you a duty of care, and that
duty was breached. Which a "pocket guide to chemotheropy" would clearly
apply to. But that isn't what we're talking about. The ABJ isn't advising
you to do anything. It's presenting information, not advice. It owes you no
duty of care. You can't sue ABJ for negligence because you didn't like the
article. Just like you can't sue the New York Times because you invested in
a stock they wrote a good article about.

How many articles have you read in ABJ or BC that describes how to build
your own bottom board, swarm trap, or double screen board, that uses power
tools. How many of them had a legal disclaimer about not cutting your hand
off? If ABJ or BC would have been sued, it would be over that. Not Randy's
article about treatment free beekeeping and genetics. Think about it. Why
would the attorneys have singled out RANDY'S article to mitigate legal risk
over all other articles in that issue. There is no legal reason.

That issue aside, the disclaimer that is put at the end of Randy's article
doesn't mitigate legal risk. If it said something like "perform these
actions at your own risk" or "the tasks performed in this article should
only be done by trained professionals" then maybe you could read it as a
LEGAL disclaimer. But that's not what it says. It talks about opinions.
That's it. It isn't a legal disclaimer.

If you think I'm wrong, please provide a case or an opinion that outlines a
legal claim. Spreading speculation and conjecture about lawsuits is fear
mongering. Lets stick to the facts.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html