|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 18, 2009 10:49:25 GMT -5
she claims that. BNSF says that they have ways of knowing if stuff like that happens. and still, even if it was a cable, she was within close enough proximity (6ft) that a rock or other object shot off the track by a wheel could have likewise done major damage. in civil court, responsibility can be meted out on both parties. so a judge or jury could say the RR is 10% at fault for having faulty equipment, but the woman is 90% at fault for being an idiot. Of course. However, just because she trespassed doesn't mean she's enough at fault to lose. All I meant was that normally on this board when there's lawsuits posted people knee-jerk say the "victim" is somehow wrong or that the person is clearly guilty. The facts here though are definitely sketchy and need to be sorted out in court, along with just how liable each party is. This reads more like a law school exam type scenario rather than a cut and dry "they're stupid" case. I think it's just really hard to find sympathy for a person who... a: broke the law by trespassing b: was injured in the act of breaking the law c: would not have been injured had she not broken the law should a person be allowed to sue a junkyard if they broke in at night and got attacked by the guard dogs? If someone broke into your house and cut themselves in a window they smashed open? The mitigating factor should be that she was injured because she was trespassing. I don't think it's wrong to believe that personal responsibility should be the primary factor. The sue-happy society is one of the big problems with our legal system.
|
|
|
Post by PaperStreetBrigade on Nov 18, 2009 10:59:03 GMT -5
Of course. However, just because she trespassed doesn't mean she's enough at fault to lose. All I meant was that normally on this board when there's lawsuits posted people knee-jerk say the "victim" is somehow wrong or that the person is clearly guilty. The facts here though are definitely sketchy and need to be sorted out in court, along with just how liable each party is. This reads more like a law school exam type scenario rather than a cut and dry "they're stupid" case. I think it's just really hard to find sympathy for a person who... a: broke the law by trespassing b: was injured in the act of breaking the law c: would not have been injured had she not broken the law should a person be allowed to sue a junkyard if they broke in at night and got attacked by the guard dogs? If someone broke into your house and cut themselves in a window they smashed open? The mitigating factor should be that she was injured because she was trespassing. I don't think it's wrong to believe that personal responsibility should be the primary factor. The sue-happy society is one of the big problems with our legal system. Sorry to bust balls, but a person can sue if they break into a junkyard and got attacked by guard dogs. A Junkyard actually can't get insurance if it does have attack dogs on the properties. Also I remember a few years ago at Seaside, NJ someone climbed two fences which both had Warning: Dog signs and got attacked by the dogs and was able to sue. It was actually illegal for them to have the dogs and their insurance wouldn't cover anything. Pretty much if you train a dog to attack, your liable. You can't train the window to attack so its a different situation.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 18, 2009 11:08:09 GMT -5
I think it's just really hard to find sympathy for a person who... a: broke the law by trespassing b: was injured in the act of breaking the law c: would not have been injured had she not broken the law should a person be allowed to sue a junkyard if they broke in at night and got attacked by the guard dogs? If someone broke into your house and cut themselves in a window they smashed open? The mitigating factor should be that she was injured because she was trespassing. I don't think it's wrong to believe that personal responsibility should be the primary factor. The sue-happy society is one of the big problems with our legal system. Sorry to bust balls, but a person can sue if they break into a junkyard and got attacked by guard dogs. A Junkyard actually can't get insurance if it does have attack dogs on the properties. Also I remember a few years ago at Seaside, NJ someone climbed two fences which both had Warning: Dog signs and got attacked by the dogs and was able to sue. It was actually illegal for them to have the dogs and their insurance wouldn't cover anything. Pretty much if you train a dog to attack, your liable. You can't train the window to attack so its a different situation. I know they can. I'm not saying they can't sue (you can sue for anything you want, thieves has sued home and store owners for injuries suffered while they were robbing them and there was even a case of a guy, I think it was in Sweden, who is suing a club that he stole a statue from because he can't sell it at auction), I'm saying they shouldn't be able to. A person who gets injured solely and entirely because they knowingly and willingly broke the law by trespassing should be fully liable for their own injuries. I think it's a problem with the system that we consider people victims who are directly responsible for their own injuries.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 18, 2009 11:19:14 GMT -5
Sorry to bust balls, but a person can sue if they break into a junkyard and got attacked by guard dogs. A Junkyard actually can't get insurance if it does have attack dogs on the properties. Also I remember a few years ago at Seaside, NJ someone climbed two fences which both had Warning: Dog signs and got attacked by the dogs and was able to sue. It was actually illegal for them to have the dogs and their insurance wouldn't cover anything. Pretty much if you train a dog to attack, your liable. You can't train the window to attack so its a different situation. I'm not saying they can't sue (you can sue for anything you want, thieves has sued home and store owners for injuries suffered while they were robbing them and there was even a case of a guy, I think it was in Sweden, who is suing a club that he stole a statue from because he can't sell it at auction), I'm saying a person who gets injured solely and entirely because they knowingly and willingly broke the law by trespassing should be fully liable for their own injuries. Yes they should, but there is precedent that goes the other way. There was a case in Ohio last year of a man who broke into someone's home, robbed the place and, while leaving, cut himself on the window he broke to get in. He sued the homeowner for the injuries sustained and won.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 18, 2009 11:33:02 GMT -5
I'm not saying they can't sue (you can sue for anything you want, thieves has sued home and store owners for injuries suffered while they were robbing them and there was even a case of a guy, I think it was in Sweden, who is suing a club that he stole a statue from because he can't sell it at auction), I'm saying a person who gets injured solely and entirely because they knowingly and willingly broke the law by trespassing should be fully liable for their own injuries. Yes they should, but there is precedent that goes the other way. There was a case in Ohio last year of a man who broke into someone's home, robbed the place and, while leaving, cut himself on the window he broke to get in. He sued the homeowner for the injuries sustained and won. Which is exactly the problem. The fact that people have to worry that someone can break the law, get onto their property, injure themselves, and sue you is asinine. These people shouldnt' be labeled as victims, just stupid criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Nov 18, 2009 15:46:52 GMT -5
She betrayed the law!
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Nov 19, 2009 3:47:46 GMT -5
Really? Its the railroad's fault for not putting up a GTFO sign? Please. Next thing, someones gonna sue a blender company. "Well it DOESN'T say to not put your hand in there now does it? That's not my fault!" Except blenders do say that, for that very reason. As for someone breaking into your home, if they sue you, just press charges and THEN countersue them (never bring up civil case before criminal case - you open yourself up to gain nothing). Since they have already admitted to burglary in their lawsuit, they won't have a leg to stand on And if the cut in the arm was deep enough, they won't have an arm with which to hold a crutch, either. And everyone, remember: don't pour 180 o fast-food coffee on your crotch, because occasionally the heating element of the holding equipment will unintentionally raise the coffee's actual temperature to Fahrenheit 195 o: the Temperature at Which Penis Burns
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Nov 19, 2009 9:39:33 GMT -5
Except blenders do say that, for that very reason. As for someone breaking into your home, if they sue you, just press charges and THEN countersue them (never bring up civil case before criminal case - you open yourself up to gain nothing). Since they have already admitted to burglary in their lawsuit, they won't have a leg to stand on And if the cut in the arm was deep enough, they won't have an arm with which to hold a crutch, either. And everyone, remember: don't pour 180 o fast-food coffee on your crotch, because occasionally the heating element of the holding equipment will unintentionally raise the coffee's actual temperature to Fahrenheit 195 o: the Temperature at Which Penis Burns That's not true. I've heard of burning penis well below that temperature. Of course, it wasn't caused by a coffee spill.
|
|