Nah, I think only if it (through its representatives) actively did something to cause the flooding, like illegally (against council regulations / without consents) installing a structure on the river
Seems analogous to driving with a known, unmanaged medical condition and causing damage when you lose control. I don't know about New Zealand, but there's places where you'd be liable for that damage.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but my understanding is that is just because there has been no duty placed on the river for flood protection (that's regional council's job) and natural events in general aren't tortious.
For the situation you bring up, not sure about property damages, but for injury there is a 'no fault' system here, you can't sue anyone for injuries.
Maybe there was no duty for flood protection when the river wasn't a person, but now it is, and it has "all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person."
If I roll around on your property and damage things because it's raining, I'm liable for that, aren't I?
What makes something a natural event? If you're a strict materialist determinist, everything all of us do are natural events. If the law makes a distinction, I think it would have to draw the line somewhere around legal personhood. So if this legal person rolls around on your property damaging things, that's no longer just a natural event.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. But if you read the act (which defines what we mean by 'person' here), it's pretty clear there's nothing that says suddenly the 'person' of the river is suddenly liable for all the natural things the river does (nor does it automatically get rights to compensation for physical things from the river, like water takings, being used for transport etc). It explicitly says stuff like "the common law rules of accretion, erosion, and avulsion apply to the water boundaries when the adjoining lands are subject to those rules"
Just cause the act calls the river a person doesn't mean you can armchair logic your way to any conclusion, that's just not how it works.
I want to know if the river paid income tax on that $110 million. Or if the custodians are able to vote on its behalf, or enter it in candidacy for political office.
Comments on LessWrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fB5pexHPJRsabvkQ2/unexpected-things-that-are-people#comments
Comments on HackerNews https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45877257
Might also want to include dolphins in India.
Thanks I wasn’t aware of their exceptional legal status!
Ooh! Don't forget the Tree That Owns Itself in Athens, Georgia!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself
I used to live in Athens, and the tree was one of the first places I visited
If the Whanganui River were to flood and destroy my property, would I be entitled to compensation?
Nah, I think only if it (through its representatives) actively did something to cause the flooding, like illegally (against council regulations / without consents) installing a structure on the river
Seems analogous to driving with a known, unmanaged medical condition and causing damage when you lose control. I don't know about New Zealand, but there's places where you'd be liable for that damage.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but my understanding is that is just because there has been no duty placed on the river for flood protection (that's regional council's job) and natural events in general aren't tortious.
For the situation you bring up, not sure about property damages, but for injury there is a 'no fault' system here, you can't sue anyone for injuries.
Maybe there was no duty for flood protection when the river wasn't a person, but now it is, and it has "all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person."
If I roll around on your property and damage things because it's raining, I'm liable for that, aren't I?
What makes something a natural event? If you're a strict materialist determinist, everything all of us do are natural events. If the law makes a distinction, I think it would have to draw the line somewhere around legal personhood. So if this legal person rolls around on your property damaging things, that's no longer just a natural event.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. But if you read the act (which defines what we mean by 'person' here), it's pretty clear there's nothing that says suddenly the 'person' of the river is suddenly liable for all the natural things the river does (nor does it automatically get rights to compensation for physical things from the river, like water takings, being used for transport etc). It explicitly says stuff like "the common law rules of accretion, erosion, and avulsion apply to the water boundaries when the adjoining lands are subject to those rules"
Just cause the act calls the river a person doesn't mean you can armchair logic your way to any conclusion, that's just not how it works.
I want to know if the river paid income tax on that $110 million. Or if the custodians are able to vote on its behalf, or enter it in candidacy for political office.
Stumbled upon this for the first time. Great stuff.
I again confirmed the most universal truth of the universe persists - if you like arrested development, you’re a good and interesting person.
Interesting.