No, he's to blame for failing to deal with the danger. The tree is the cause of the leaves, which is the danger.
No, they caused an accident by failing to see or react properly to the danger. The dangers were the leaves on the road, and the driver's habitual incompetence.
No, more weighted towards the driver than the cone placer. In the leaves case, the blame is 100% the driver.
NIP arrived. uU|G*dfHK8Zr48 982No it isn't. No. The absence of other factors means that the "dangerous" applies to the "gun". But not from the object itself, be it gun or road. No. The gun is potentially...
No. There is a difference because the child is animate and can share some of the blame in certain circumstances (i.e. being a sane child able to understand danger). The parent or guardian can also share some of the blame, similarly to the cone layer, as they are animate. They might be remiss in providing sufficient supervision or safety sense to their charge.
However, now that we've added a modifier to the situation, (that the child is just standing there, completely still, without moving an inch), it suggests that the blame situation has moved considerably in the direction of the driver.
They might not be less dangerous. Indeed, they could be more dangerous.
Note that for the purposes of this thread, I'm using "blame" here in a legalistic way, excluding inanimate objects. I believe that blame could sometimes apply to inanimate objects, particularly in conversational usage (although I prefer the word "cause" for inanimate objects).
Christian.