Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="jeaton"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] [quote user="jeaton"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] If canoe renters trespassing on the bridge were so common that the canoe rental outfit should have known about it, does it not follow that the NS should have also known about it?    And if the canoe rental outfit should be held liable for not warning canoe renters about the danger of trespassing on the bridge, should not NS also be held liable for not preventing people from trespassing on the bridge?  [/quote] I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that NS has posted "Danger, No Trespassing" signs on or about the bridge.  What would you do?  Have a security guard patrol the bridge?  Hang concertina wire?  Put up gates? [/quote] Well, if it were up to me, I would not hold the canoe rental company or the NS liable for the death.  But if you construct a case where the canoe rental company should have taken action because they knew about the hazard, then the same reasoning should apply to the NS as well.  If trespassing on the bridge was so common, it seems reasonable to conclude that NS should have known about it.  And if they knew about it, they should have known that a sign was not preventing people from trespassing.  <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge.  [/quote] It seems to me that it is fairly well established that signs warning of danger and posting no trespassing either relieve or significantly mitigate liability for injury to an individual who ignores the signs.  If that is situation in this case, and other facts presented in evidence show that all appropriate warnings were made, and in the absence of other considerations, then the plaintiff's suit may not be successful.  If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have. Is that a problem? [/quote]I am not sure I understand your question.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>You said: <o:p></o:p>   “If it goes to trial, 6 ordinary citizens on a jury may come to the same conclusion that you have. Is that a problem?” <o:p></o:p> My conclusion was that if the canoe rental company could be found liable, then by the same reasoning, NS could likewise be found liable.  If a jury came to that conclusion, I would be inclined to conclude that the jury should not have found either party liable.  In that sense, from my perspective, it would be a problem.  But, at least it would be consistent according to my analogy of the two defendants owing protection to the victim.  However, as Gabe has explained, the burden of protection is stricter with the canoe rental company than it is with the NS.  Given that stipulation, I do not know what to expect the jury to do.  Nor do I have any opinion as to what they should do.  If the burden of protection is different for the two defendants, the protection they provided cannot be directly compared.  And I have no idea of how to measure the burden of protection for each party.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag