Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Woman falls from CN bridge - dies
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="marknewton"][quote user="Bucyrus"]It is interesting that the law speaks of a duty owed by a landowner to a trespasser that might apply to an incident where a trespasser is injured while trespassing. Yet there does not seem to be any room for this concept in the widespread, popular conclusion that whatever happens to a trespasser is their own fault because it would not have happened had they not trespassed. [/quote]<br />It's a widespread and conclusion because it is an unarguable <strong>fact</strong>. These deaths and injuries <strong>wouldn't have occured</strong> had these people not been trespassing. You cannot argue otherwise.<br /><br />If the woman <strong>hadn't</strong> trespassed on the bridge she <strong>wouldn't</strong> have fallen off and been killed - fact.<br /><br />If the two boys <strong>hadn't</strong> climbed on the boxcar they <strong>wouldn't</strong> have been electrocuted - fact.<br /><br />Please note - no-one is arguing the facts of law with you. What we are saying is that the law, as it stands, is wrong.<br /><br />And personally, I wonder why you're an apologist for all the self-destructive idiots of the world.<br /><br />Mark.<br /><br />[/quote]</p><p>I agree that the death would not have occurred had the victim not trespassed. I am not arguing otherwise as you seem to believe. </p><p>When I said that it is a popular, widespread conclusion that whatever happens to a trespasser is their own fault<strong> </strong>because it would not have happened had they not trespassed, I was making the point that that conclusion overlooks the legal theory that part or all of the fault for injury to a trespasser may be assigned to the landowner if the landowner can be shown to have been guilty of wanton misconduct by failing to protect the trespasser from a hazard that would not be obvious. </p><p>I do realize that nobody is arguing the facts of the law, but rather, some are arguing that the law is wrong headed or flawed in its logic. But I am only explaining my interpretation of the legal theory, and not taking a position as to whether it is flawed in its construction. You believe the law is flawed, and would probably disagree with anybody who contends otherwise. But I have no opinion on that matter, so why are you arguing with me? </p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy