What are the ramifications of this??

stacexD wrote: »

Isn't his intention to dissuade intruders from touching his tanks by putting the chemical in his unused tank and warning any intruders of that, therefore creating a big risk factor. Rather than trying to harm the intruders? It seems pretty much the same as having a guard dog, the reason they are guard dogs is because they are vicious and pose a risk to intruders no?

The OP didn’t mention any warning or notice. My impression was that his intention was not to dissuade intruders from stealing, but to injure them if they did steal. (And the desire to injure them may have been motivated by the hope that, if injured, they would be slow to steal again. But it may also have been motivated by a simple appetite for retribution.)

And my impression was intensified by some of the discussion which followed, which seem to revolve around the question of whether you could avoid liability by displaying some vague warning, which would not be clear enough to dissuade the thieves, but would somehow be enough to get you “off the hook” for injuring them.

If he puts up a suitably prominent sign that says “Warning: contents of storage tanks include caustic soda”, and if he observes any specific hazchem labeling regulations which may apply, then as far as I can see he’s in the clear as far as liablity for injury to burglars goes.