fear factor sued

[Darth Wong]

So, Mike, how exactly does liability law allow a robber to sue his victim?

I have the same question. When someone breaks the law, don't they give up all of their rights?

Liability law has nothing to do with the rights of the accuser, and everything to do with the duty of care of the defendant.

[Montcalm]

Example: What if a robber enter my house to steal ty video dvd,so he can sell it to buy drugs,and he gets bitten by my dog does that give him the right to sue me?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Isn't private property different from public property or bussinesses? I remember when I had Business law, liability was different in private homes than it was for public places.

I don't see how someone can break into your home. No one should be in your property in the first place. Maybe it's different in other places, however.

[Darth Wong]

Example: What if a robber enter my house to steal ty video dvd,so he can sell it to buy drugs,and he gets bitten by my dog does that give him the right to sue me?

No, because there was no negligence involved since the dog was behaving normally. It's all about negligence. Once you understand what negligence is, you will understand how these lawsuits work.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see how someone can break into your home. No one should be in your property in the first place. Maybe it's different in other places, however.

Someone can't break into your home. It's called "Breaking and Entering", and it's a criminal offense. However, that does not affect the question of whether you were negligent. One of the prime examples is a pool owner whose pool is not properly secured, so some neighbourhood kids wander in through the unlocked gate and drown. The fact that they were trespassing is irrelevant to the question of whether he was negligent.

[Chardok]

Example: What if a robber enter my house to steal ty video dvd,so he can sell it to buy drugs,and he gets bitten by my dog does that give him the right to sue me?

No, because there was no negligence involved since the dog was behaving normally. It's all about negligence. Once you understand what negligence is, you will understand how these lawsuits work.

So what if someone breaks into my house, Mike, trips over my dog, and falls, poking himself himself with a hypodermic needle I carelessly left out after giving myself an insulin shot. (In this imaginary scenario, I am a Diabetic HIV patient). Now the robber has HIV. Awww shucks. Guess I'm negligent, huh? Whereas, the case SHOULD be made that, had the robber not engaged in behavior which is against the fucking law in the first place, he never would have run the risk of poking himself with my HIV encrusted needle, and therefore should be liable. Nope. I'm liable for improperly disposed of sharps, right?

But....I realize this is not a debate on the morality of negligence laws, but do you see my point?

[Darth Wong]

So what if someone breaks into my house, Mike, trips over my dog, and falls, poking himself himself with a hypodermic needle I carelessly left out after giving myself an insulin shot. (In this imaginary scenario, I am a Diabetic HIV patient). Now the robber has HIV. Awww shucks. Guess I'm negligent, huh?

Yes you are. That could have been your nephew visiting your house, fuckhead. Anyone who left HIV-positive needles laying around his fucking house is a goddamned idiot, and deserves whatever's coming to him.

Whereas, the case SHOULD be made that, had the robber not engaged in behavior which is against the fucking law in the first place, he never would have run the risk of poking himself with my HIV encrusted needle, and therefore should be liable. Nope. I'm liable for improperly disposed of sharps, right?

Yes you are. The law does not permit you to be a fucking idiot. Boo hoo.

But....I realize this is not a debate on the morality of negligence laws, but do you see my point?

You have no point. You simply chose to ignore mine. Your argument is an appeal to emotion; nothing more.

[Chardok]

Again, I say, had he not engaged in illegal behavior, he never would have been in danger of being injured, right?

[Chardok]

Fuckhead.

[Stofsk]

Again, I say, had he not engaged in illegal behavior, he never would have been in danger of being injured, right?

So what if someone breaks into my house, Mike, trips over my dog, and falls, poking himself himself with a hypodermic needle I carelessly left out after giving myself an insulin shot. (In this imaginary scenario, I am a Diabetic HIV patient). Now the robber has HIV. Awww shucks. Guess I'm negligent, huh?

Yes you are. That could have been your nephew visiting your house, fuckhead. Anyone who left HIV-positive needles laying around his fucking house is a goddamned idiot, and deserves whatever's coming to him.

[Chardok]

Again, I say, had he not engaged in illegal behavior, he never would have been in danger of being injured, right?

So what if someone breaks into my house, Mike, trips over my dog, and falls, poking himself himself with a hypodermic needle I carelessly left out after giving myself an insulin shot. (In this imaginary scenario, I am a Diabetic HIV patient). Now the robber has HIV. Awww shucks. Guess I'm negligent, huh?

Yes you are. That could have been your nephew visiting your house, fuckhead. Anyone who left HIV-positive needles laying around his fucking house is a goddamned idiot, and deserves whatever's coming to him.

If my nephew is there, I'm not leaving out contaminated sharps. Perhaps I should clarify.

I'm a living-alone guy. there is no one there ecxept me. homeboy breaks in and skewers himself. Otherwise the only one in danger would be me, myself, and irene.

[Stofsk]

If my nephew is there, I'm not leaving out contaminated sharps. Perhaps I should clarify.

Of course not, and why? Because that would be negligent.

I'm a living-alone guy. there is no one there ecxept me. homeboy breaks in and skewers himself. Otherwise the only one in danger would be me, myself, and irene.

While they would indeed be guilty of breaking and entering, and trespassing, their crimes do not mitigate your own, which would still be negligent. Like it or not, leaving out a syringe in an open environment that can cause injury is still negligent.

Yes, if he hadn't broken in and tripped and fell, and landed on the syringe, he wouldn't have been skewered and contracted HIV. On the other hand, if you hadn't left out the syringe, he wouldn't have contracted HIV.

[Chardok]

If my nephew is there, I'm not leaving out contaminated sharps. Perhaps I should clarify.

Of course not, and why? Because that would be negligent.

I'm a living-alone guy. there is no one there ecxept me. homeboy breaks in and skewers himself. Otherwise the only one in danger would be me, myself, and irene.

While they would indeed be guilty of breaking and entering, and trespassing, their crimes do not mitigate your own, which would still be negligent. Like it or not, leaving out a syringe in an open environment that can cause injury is still negligent.

Yes, if he hadn't broken in and tripped and fell, and landed on the syringe, he wouldn't have been skewered and contracted HIV. On the other hand, if you hadn't left out the syringe, he wouldn't have contracted HIV.

*paradox collapses the universe*

*again*

I understand how the law works, I guess I was, in a blundering way, attempting to argue the morality of it. But you really cant, the law is the law, like it or not...

[Stofsk]

*paradox collapses the universe*

*again*

I understand how the law works, I guess I was, in a blundering way, attempting to argue the morality of it. But you really cant, the law is the law, like it or not...

Well, if you want to argue the MORALITY of it, then how about this?

The crime he committed was breaking and entering your home. Assuming he was there to burglarise it, maybe you suffer a couple $100 worth of stuff that he takes with him.

If he trips, and skewers his hands with a syringe in your scenario, then he contracts HIV, who suffers more?

You lose $100 of stuff; CDs DVDs, TVs, whatever. He's got a virtual death sentence.

What about the kid who climbs over the fence and falls into the pool, can't swim, and drowns?

Yes, he shouldn't have climbed the fence; but what harm is done to your fence? If he was going to vandalise your home, it's only a financial setback. Or maybe he was playing baseball or whatever, and climbed the fence to retrieve a ball? If he DIES, then who's suffered the most?

[Admiral Valdemar]

People, like Mike has said, you're using emotions to dictate judicial law. That is NOT how the world works.

Put it this way. If a guy murders someone who was later found to be a paedophile and a child sex trafficker, should that person be let off the hook because he disposed of a social misfit? Fuck no. Justice is blind and the act of murder is a crime, regardless of whether it produced an acceptable result to the parents of many children in the neighbourhood.

Ergo, no amount of bitching will change the fact that the law exists and must be abided by. You can point out it sound silly all you want, but it exists as protection like any law and if it truly were ridiculous, it would've been rescinded long ago.

[Darth Wong]

Again, I say, had he not engaged in illegal behavior, he never would have been in danger of being injured, right?

Totally irrelevant, dumb-shit. Every human being has a societal responsibility not to endanger others. It is the negligence itself which is being punished; what part of this can't you get through your skull, moron? Suppose a fireman breaks into your house to rescue you while you're unconscious from smoke inhalation, you stupid piece of shit?

Or are you the kind of idiot who figures it's OK to drive drunk if the only person you kill is a kid who was jaywalking? After all, "had he not engaged in illegal behaviour, he never would have been in danger of being injured, right?"

Your idiot logic simply does not work. Hell, I didn't even have to change a single word. As more than one pundit has said throughout history, sometimes mockery is unnecessay. Quoting will suffice.

[Chardok]

Why, you stupid, shit-eating fucktard. asslicker, buttwipe, shithead, fart-blossom, peter-puffer, bjork-dater, ass-head, hilbilly, goat raping shit-for-brains, couthless ignorant redneck dipshit fuckwad. chew on my dingleberries, you toothless inbred crapfarmer.

And to complete the package, a witty quote. Source anonymous, this time.

"Some people have a way about them that seems to say: "If I have only one life to live, let me live it as a jerk."


See? My post is as productive as yours! except I didn't waste time addressing points which were already made! Neat! If you want to call names, don't dress it up with a bunch of words in between.

[Darth Wong]

Why, you stupid, shit-eating fucktard. asslicker, buttwipe, shithead, fart-blossom, peter-puffer, bjork-dater, ass-head, hilbilly, goat raping shit-for-brains, couthless ignorant redneck dipshit fuckwad. chew on my dingleberries, you toothless inbred crapfarmer.

In other words, you're too stupid to refute the point and too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Sorry, but you lose, fucktard.

And to complete the package, a witty quote. Source anonymous, this time.

"Some people have a way about them that seems to say: "If I have only one life to live, let me live it as a jerk."

In other words, you're too stupid to refute the point and too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Sorry, but you lose, fucktard.

See? My post is as productive as yours! except I didn't waste time addressing points which were already made! Neat! If you want to call names, don't dress it up with a bunch of words in between.

In other words, you're too stupid to refute the point and too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Sorry, but you lose, fucktard.

[Chardok]

<snip arrogant, stupid, arrogant, stupid, yadda yadda yadda>

Like I said, I understand how the law works, and I see everyone's point. your fireman analogy et. al. is a valid one, I never denied that. Appeal to emotion fallacy, I got it. I concede.

[Nova Andromeda]

--There is something I'm not clear on. What standard is applied to people and the house they live in in determining whether they are negligent or not? I ask this because if someone broke into my lab and started messing with stuff they didn't understand they stand a very good chance of being injured and in the worst case, killed. Are the same standards applied to a person's house as my lab (at least in theory) and if not then why?

[Darth Wong]

--There is something I'm not clear on. What standard is applied to people and the house they live in in determining whether they are negligent or not? I ask this because if someone broke into my lab and started messing with stuff they didn't understand they stand a very good chance of being injured and in the worst case, killed. Are the same standards applied to a person's house as my lab (at least in theory) and if not then why?

Duty of care is determined relative to other people doing the same thing you are. In other words, the duty of care for a homeowner is determined based on the typical level of safety one expects to find in a residential house. Duty of care for a laboratory is similarly determined based on the typical level of safety one expects to find in a laboratory. This isn't rocket science, pal. I can see that you haven't put even the slightest effort into pondering this on your own.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Chardok & Mike: I guess I've got the picture now. Suppose I left a HIV-infected syringe at my house, and a burglar got tripped and skewers on of his testicles on it (thus getting the HIV), I would be liable for negligence, since *anyone* could get the same fate even though they're not burglarizing my house.

However, if I accidentally kill the burglar in self-defense attempt (like pinching, twisting, and finally pulling out his testicles using tongs... Well not a good example of self-defense but you got the picture...), I would not be liable for anything (provided it's legal), because the burglar died out of self-defense attempt by the victim, instead of negligence.

Am I getting the correct picture?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Rats mixed in a blender? Please tell me they were dead first.

I'd hope so, but wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. They had one one ages ago with eating live cockroaches or something. Kinds pissed me off really. Insect or not, I'm not one for unnecessarily killing anything, particularily for entertainment.

Waidda' minute, Robert. You saw them eating live COCKROACHES and you're concerned about the unnecessarily killing of those cockraches?????

Now I don't know whether I should admire or hate you.

[Darth Wong]

Chardok & Mike: I guess I've got the picture now. Suppose I left a HIV-infected syringe at my house, and a burglar got tripped and skewers on of his testicles on it (thus getting the HIV), I would be liable for negligence, since *anyone* could get the same fate even though they're not burglarizing my house.

The key principle here is "duty of care". In our society, every individual is deemed to have a duty of care to take precautions to protect the public. There is an emotional trigger that is activated if the victim of one's negligence just happens to be a criminal, but in that case, the law already has a remedy: the criminal is charged and punished for his crime. Regardless, the negligence itself is slapped with a disincentive in the form of legal liability, the rationale being that you need some kind of disincentive to prevent negligence otherwise there would be enormous damage, injuries, suffering, death, etc (as an engineer this is crucially important, but from an ethical standpoint, it is important for everyone else too).

This is no small matter; as disturbing as it may be that violent crime kills some 15,000 people every year in America, disregard for public safety is actually more destructive. It is, in essence, a larger problem than violent crime! Look at the numbers for murder vs car crashes; careless driving kills nearly 3 times as many people per year as murder! And that understates the problem, given the huge number of people who are horribly injured, maimed, disfigured, crippled, etc. forever by car crashes. The moral duty of the individual to safeguard the people around him is a very important social issue that is rarely given the press it deserves. It is easy to condemn criminals; it is hard for us to admit that we, the law-abiding public, also have a burden to carry.

However, if I accidentally kill the burglar in self-defense attempt (like pinching, twisting, and finally pulling out his testicles using tongs... Well not a good example of self-defense but you got the picture...), I would not be liable for anything (provided it's legal), because the burglar died out of self-defense attempt by the victim, instead of negligence.

Correct. You were not negligent in killing the burglar in self-defense (assuming it really was self-defense). Of course, you might get in trouble if it is believed that you did not really kill the burglar in self-defense, but that's a different topic.

Am I getting the correct picture?

Yes.

[Silver Jedi]

I have a question about all this, and I apologise that I know basicly nothing about the relavant law. Why is the owner of the store liable for a person in an area where they are not allowed to be (ie. anywhere in the store after-hours). How is the store owner neglecting his responsibility? Hasn't he fufilled it by telling you not to come in (by locking the door and hanging a "closed" sign in the window)? I understand the situation of the pool owner with the unlocked gate, but what if he locks the gate and the kids just break the lock? What lengths does the owner have to go to?
Say it was a wet floor instead of a ladder. Why is it accptable to rope the area off and put up a "caution, wet floor" sign, but not acceptable to close the entire store?