This is the fairest way until the pan done is unintentional, where there is a chance you’ll be considered not responsible and you won’t have to pay for the damages that you have made, but mom sources may still consider you responsible depending on your surroundings and actions. The In)LU -ply disagrees with the title, as he brings up two categories of damage: Passive and Active. In the first category, passive damage, he says that if the paten’s damage is unintentional and he is aware of the pro’s presence then unfortunately he must pay for the damage however if he is unaware (and unintentional) he is not responsible and does not have to pay.
On the other hand if the pan is considered active it doesn’t matter if the damage is unintentional, intentional and aware or unaware the PPTP must pay for what he has done. Therefore the In)LU -ply has showed that sometimes a person is held responsible for unintentional damage. The :Reno has said that although the Mishmash stated that a person is always responsible for any damage he does, there is an important exception which is, if two people are sleeping and one goes to bed before the other, if the one who first went to bed knocks over an object he is exempt as he has not been warned.
We can infer from this that the reason why a person is responsible for all damage they do in general whether intentionally or not is because they are always earned and aware of themselves and surroundings, whilst they are awake. The :Reno explains that you are not responsible when you are unaware (asleep) as you are not warned. The nu has a simple solution to this problem. He says it depends on the area where the damage is done. If the pan is expected from the environment you’re in, you must pay as you are aware and warned.
For example: You are going on a roller coaster with your friends, you are told to leave your purse in the bag zone but you do not listen as you are scared someone will steal your purse, whilst on the ride the ruse falls of the carriage when the coaster does a loop and you blame the staff, it is not their fault as you were warned, aware and it is expected from the environment. The nu has agreed with the In)LU -ply and once again showed that you are sometimes responsible for damage that is not intentional.
The Г?non comments twice, agreeing with himself as he talks about how it matters where the damage is caused, not how or when. If the damage is unintentional if it is done in the paten’s property, you are exempt from paying, if you are in the pro’s property you must pay, and if you re in a third party’s property you do not have to pay for the damages. The non once again shows that you are often not responsible for unintentional damage.
In conclusion I think that a person should be held responsible for unintentional damage because although it seems unfair there are exceptions to the law when it comes to lap’s, you also need to think about the PRNG as he shouldn’t need to pay for damage he you do them and consider the opt before you try and get out of paying damages. So personally I think that a person should be held responsible as they will learn a lesson and learn to be more aware as they were always warned.