In article , ned wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

When you plant leylandii, you have SOME moral responsibility to
consider what will happen after you cease maintaining them, just
as you do when erecting buildings.

Really?
Is there case law to support that?

Hmm. I know about courts with criminal, civil, religious, scientific
and international jurisdiction, but the only ones in the UK that I
know of that claims to include morals are the General Medical Council,
the church courts and some university courts, but none of them apply
those rules to other than their own members. Not even Oxford and
Cambridge did, back in the days when the proctors had the power of
arrest over the general public. Or do you know of one that I don't?

I know many builders who must not sleep easy if its true.
If I have a car, drive it carefully, then sell it, do I have any moral
responsibility if the new owner drives it carelessly?

You should, if it has dangerous aspects, even if they don't make it
illegal to sell. A while ago, a company started importing either
Ladas or Moskvas (I forget), which did not meet UK roadworthiness
standards (e.g. the brakes didn't work in wet weather). It was
illegal to drive them, but not to sell them. The police complained
(publicly), but Whitehall couldn't be bothered to act, so the Kent
police took matters into their own hands. They set up a road block
around the importer's yard (buyers had to collect, for obvious reasons),
stopped every buyer leaving the premises, charged them and impounded
the car. They weren't allowed to stop people entering and say "don't"
but did announce their plan very publicly. The importer complained
to the politicians about "restraint of trade", but received little
sympathy, and stopped trading a few days later.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.