1) The case in question, that of the asshat tripping over a ladder during a breakin, has one key item that's being missed. Ladders are large, wide, tall, and not exactly hard to see...UNLESS one is skulking around in hte middle of the night through a dark store. Ergo the robber is putting himself in far greater risk simply by his choice of venues. Thoughts?
2) Signs on the inside of every door in the country stating, "Life carries risk of injury or death. Live at your own risk."
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
HemlockGrey wrote:So, Mike, how exactly does liability law allow a robber to sue his victim?
Liability law has nothing to do with the plaintiff's moral character. It is strictly based on the question of whether the defendant was negligent. Suppose the store was not broken into and instead, an employee came in that morning and hurt himself in the same manner. He could easily sue the store owner, and no one would scream "bullshit!"
The problem is, the store was not open to the public. The storeowner should not be held responsible for someone getting hurt since there should have been no one in the store, and the ladder would have been removed in the morning
The purpose of liability laws is to discourage and punish negligence. Given that purpose, the moral character of the injured person is a red herring. Mind you, the robber would still go to prison for B&E, and I doubt he would get a really big award considering his situation.
So, all the storeowner had to do was say that the ladder was placed there deliberately as an anti-burglar device.
Another thing I was musing on while bored at work...what about the 'duty of care' of any given adult to himself? If someone goes out of his way to put himself at risk (blundering around a locked store in the middle of the night with the lights off), wouldn't the negligence be his in that case? Never mind the criminal charge, it'd be the same if an employee allowed to be in the store opened it up at 2AM and decided to walk around with the lights all off.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
Darth Wong wrote:Liability law has nothing to do with the plaintiff's moral character. It is strictly based on the question of whether the defendant was negligent. Suppose the store was not broken into and instead, an employee came in that morning and hurt himself in the same manner. He could easily sue the store owner, and no one would scream "bullshit!"
The problem is, the store was not open to the public. The storeowner should not be held responsible for someone getting hurt since there should have been no one in the store, and the ladder would have been removed in the morning
Read the fucking thread.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
White Haven wrote:Another thing I was musing on while bored at work...what about the 'duty of care' of any given adult to himself? If someone goes out of his way to put himself at risk (blundering around a locked store in the middle of the night with the lights off), wouldn't the negligence be his in that case? Never mind the criminal charge, it'd be the same if an employee allowed to be in the store opened it up at 2AM and decided to walk around with the lights all off.
Negligence is generally considered a civil matter. In other words, he might consider himself negligent, but what's he going to do? Sue himself?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
