diningcarMany well stated opinions/positions above, but one issue has not been adressed: Why do so many plaintiffs attorney's seek to file their suits in specifec judicial venues? They must have a reason and it appears to be the jury pool. Comments welcomed.
Many well stated opinions/positions above, but one issue has not been adressed:
Why do so many plaintiffs attorney's seek to file their suits in specifec judicial venues?
They must have a reason and it appears to be the jury pool. Comments welcomed.
Short answer is, it is their job. You take the best venue you can get. That having been said, you raise a legitimate under point. It is not fair that one court system will give one plaintiff nothing and give another plaintiff all the money in the world.
That having been said, for some reason, people do not realize that this goes both ways. Defendants have cases removed all the time, sometimes plaintiffs are stuck in particular jurisdictions that are Defendant friendly. Is it any less fair to a plaintiff that has to litigate in a jurisdiction that is pro-Defendant than it is for a Defendant to have to litigate in a jurisdiction that is pro-Plaintiff?
However, even jurisdiction is not what it used to be twenty years ago. Take Madison County, Illinois for example. It is still a pro-Plaintiff forum, but they have gone a long way toward changing some things. Plus, your bigger cases now days tend to be in federal court, and such courts are not as mercurial as the various state courts.
Gabe
RRKenschlimm zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers. You and I may not agree on a lot of things, but your comment is worth gold. It is part and parcel of the freedoms and rights we hold in the U.S. Are freedoms abused? Yes. Would we want less freedoms/rights to safeguard against those who would abuse our remaining freedoms/rights? No. I have said elsewhere, Railroad carriers have very able Law Departments, and perhaps the best firms in the country on retainer. And there is no "fund" or "contingency" in a carriers budget for injuries and accidents. That comes right off the bottom line. Thus, Safety Pays.
schlimm zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty. Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
zardoz ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury. Jury: Twelve people not smart enough to figure out a way of avoiding their civic duty.
ButchKnouse They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
They are up to the 12 idiots on the jury.
Sounds like neither of you have any appreciation of history [the Magna Carta and the US Constitution] and what a break it was for the common man to get the civil right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers.
You and I may not agree on a lot of things, but your comment is worth gold. It is part and parcel of the freedoms and rights we hold in the U.S. Are freedoms abused? Yes. Would we want less freedoms/rights to safeguard against those who would abuse our remaining freedoms/rights? No.
I have said elsewhere, Railroad carriers have very able Law Departments, and perhaps the best firms in the country on retainer. And there is no "fund" or "contingency" in a carriers budget for injuries and accidents. That comes right off the bottom line. Thus, Safety Pays.
Don't get me wrong, my love of trains causes me to lean toward favoring railroads in most lawsuits. Nonetheless, feeling sorry for a railroad in a court room is like feeling sorry for Andre the Giant during a wrestling match. They never hurt for the ability to retain quality representation--where do you think the term "railroaded" came from?Gabe
gabeGiven what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.Gabe
Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.
Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.
What about people that can't take the financial hardship that serving on a jury can result in? Some people just can't lose several days (weeks) of wages for what? $2.34 a day?
My personal opinion is that many courthouses should actually be moved out of cities, but that is not really relevant to this post...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmanngabeGiven what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do.Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning.Gabe What about people that can't take the financial hardship that serving on a jury can result in? Some people just can't lose several days (weeks) of wages for what? $2.34 a day? My personal opinion is that many courthouses should actually be moved out of cities, but that is not really relevant to this post...
gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe
Gabe,
Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem.
I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state.
Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way.
Bucyrus gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe Gabe, Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem. I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state. Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way.
Dan
CNW 6000 Bucyrus gabe Given what I said of the regard I hold jurors, you might be surprised that I am telling you this secret. But, my view is, if your civic duty is not enough to make you show up and take jury duty seriously, then you really do not belong there--and you have no business complaining about what jurors do. Anyway, if you really want to get out of jury duty, legally, here is how you do it. It is a little-known rule, but most states allow jurors to ask questions. Just tell both lawyers how much you are looking forward to asking the witnesses questions--they will not be able to find a way to get you out of there fast enough. No lawyer wants someone other than him doing the questioning. Gabe Gabe, Several of us have made comments about juries and jury duty obligations, so I am not sure whom you are talking to. It is a common cliché that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That, of course, is aimed at disrespecting the decisions that juries make. I have no concern about problems with the decisions that juries make. I don’t know how much of a problem it is. A lot of people seem to believe that it is a big problem. I certainly don’t believe the jurors are stupid as a group characteristic. And if taken literally, the idea that juries are composed of people who are not smart enough to get out of it is complete nonsense. Unless you are blessed with one of the official excuses, the only way I know to get out of jury duty is to move to another state. Your advice about answering questions by the attorneys in a way that causes them to reject you for a trial will not get you out of jury duty in my county. If you did happen to get rejected for one trial, you would just be sent back to the waiting room to wait for the next call for another trial. The obligation runs two weeks even if you get rejected from every trial along the way. I'll flip this question the other way then: how does one get picked for jury duty? I was told it was from the pool of registered voters. I registered to vote the day I turned 18 and have voted in every single election since then. I have never been selected or sent a letter. My wife, however, registered before the last Presidential election and has since received 3 notices and been selected once. I actually would like to experience Jury Duty to "do my part". Ideas?
You can call your jury office and volunteer if you want to serve. Otherwise, I have no idea what criteria they use for selection, and why some are selected often and others are never selected.
The details of jury service vary considerably from one district to another. Some release you after one trial selection. If the case happens to be dismissed before trial, you might end your obligation after one day.
My county requires you to stay for the entire two weeks--ten full days. It is downtown in a big city. You go there in rush hour and come home in rush hour. They reimburse for mileage, but at only about ¼ the actual cost. You park in a ramp 3-8 blocks away from the government center, and walk there. They have food vending machines. The pay was $30 per day, but it was just recently reduced to $10 per day. The pay just barely covers the cost of parking.
Some, but not all employers give their employees full pay while serving on jury duty. All local, county, state, and federal government employees are given full pay while on jury duty.
Keep in mind that the two-week obligation continues past two weeks if you get put on a trial that continues past that period. The entire ordeal could last many weeks if the trial runs that long. In certain trials, you could be sequestered by the court and spend the nights in a hotel.
Last fall, there was a newspaper article that said the county is having a hard time getting enough jurors. This is because people are simply refusing to serve because they are worried about losing their job if they vacate it for two weeks. Many employers do not compensate their employees while serving on jury duty, so the two-week obligation means a loss of two-week’s worth of pay. But the people refusing are not doing so because of the loss of pay.
In this lousy economy, employers are stressed to the limit. They can no more stand to lose an employee for two weeks than the employee can stand to lose the pay. So the employees are simply worried about losing their job and then not being able to find another one. The jury office tells them not to worry about that because it is against the law for their employers to fire them for vacating their job to perform jury service.
Well that’s fine and dandy, but there are loopholes in that assurance big enough to drive a truck through, and the employees see right through it. So they simply take a chance on prosecution and refuse jury duty. They weigh the risk and consequences of prosecution against the risk and consequences of losing their job, and the job wins.
On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio.
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
choochoobuffOn a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
$25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern.
gabe choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news $25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern. Gabe
choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news
It says "In Excess of $25,000". We don't know how much they're really seeking.
And this is the kind of legal action that makes many of us angry. They claim the NS didn't do its duty to equip the train will all necessary navigational and safety devices? This is making up the rules after the fact in an effort to grab some money.
I see it as a 21 year old putting himself in a place of danger, failing to take readily available action to remove himself from that danger, and getting killed. Now I see his mother and a lawyer trying to make money off that.
Legal actions such as this are a real detriment to our economic well being and they need to be prohibited in a way that doesn't remove the ability of someone with a real case to take legal action.
greyhounds gabe choochoobuff On a similar note, this article details a suit going on here in Ohio. http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/family-of-man-hit-by-train-suing-railroad-canoe-company-848161.html?cxtype=rss_local-news $25,000!?! Suing Norfolk Southern for $25,000 is a losing proposition. It ain't worth it for the rings they will make you jump through. You couldn't guarantee me a $25,000 fee much less $25,000 recovery to sue Norfolk Southern. Gabe Gabe, It says "In Excess of $25,000". We don't know how much they're really seeking. And this is the kind of legal action that makes many of us angry. They claim the NS didn't do its duty to equip the train will all necessary navigational and safety devices? This is making up the rules after the fact in an effort to grab some money. I see it as a 21 year old putting himself in a place of danger, failing to take readily available action to remove himself from that danger, and getting killed. Now I see his mother and a lawyer trying to make money off that. Legal actions such as this are a real detriment to our economic well being and they need to be prohibited in a way that doesn't remove the ability of someone with a real case to take legal action.
I must admit, you have me on one front: you have managed to contradict my statement of doubting that there are law firms with the money to burn on frivolous suits.
I will be curious to see whether this lawsuit--at least against NS--ever sees a jury, and I will be equally curious to see if NS lives up to its reputation in this one. I do not envy that attorney right now--he better hope he has both time and money to burn on this one.
I'm not sure what "navigational" device "should" have been on this train that would have prevented this needless incident from happening. Additionally, looking at the area in question (Acme Mapper Link) I would be asking why that spot to "jump off" on trips in the river when there appears to be navigable water access from the nearby George Rogers Clark Park just NW of the trestle or why they didn't choose any of the three nearby (NE from Trestle) road bridges to 'jump off'.
What is NS' reputation in cases that you allude to Gabe? TIA
CNW 6000 What is NS' reputation in cases that you allude to Gabe? TIA
Have you heard of Attila the Hun and Genghis Kahn? Panzies, I tell you.
Don't get me wrong, scorched-earth litigation doesn't scare me when I have a legitimate case, and it can (sometimes) backfire on a defendant when there is a legitimate claim. But, if your best closing argument starts out with "and now ladies and gentleman a tap dance," you are going to be in for a rough time of it going up against a company that is just waiting to stick the fire hose in your mouth and turn on the proverbial spicket.
Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time.
You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability here. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger.
That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument/defense--most intelligent people walking on a railroad bridge would know that there is a risk involved.
In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it.
Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late.
gabeSawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe
You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger.
That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved.
Sawtooth500gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe This is a great example of where I disagree with the law and I think that tort reform is badly needed - just because you rent something to someone (especially a common, mundane item like a canoe, we're not talking about a flamethrower) you shouldn't have to be responsible for how that person uses that item. I really think it's ridiculous how our laws are written in a way that the canoe company could possibly be sued for this... Additionally the lawsuit says that the canoe company knew that people jumped off that bridge - I'm guessing if it actually goes to court the plaintiffs would have to prove that the canoe company actually had knowledge of the jumping.
gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe
I don't really have a position on this or agree or disagree with you. This kind of Tort law is not how I put food on my families' table and I hope not to be involved in this kind of tort . . .
But, the purpose of tort law is not to promote personal responsibility or to make poeple act in an intelligent manner. The purpose is to reduce the cost of accidents in society. If an owner of a business knows his customers are acting in a manner that has a substantial probability to cause an injury, tort law imposes a duty upon him to attempt to prevent that injury.
I would be surprised if all the tort reform in the world would nullify that maxim, as it is pretty well established. Tort reform is more aimed at minimizing the lawsuits that NS is currently experiencing.
Like I said, there are affirmative defenses, but--generally--when you know someone is using your services in a manner that might lead to injury and someone gets injured, you are not going to have an easy time of it.
gabeSawtooth500gabe Sawtooth500This whole NS bridge incident is just a great example of an idiot trying to skirt personal responsibility... nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, if I were the canoe company I'd be countersuing them for legal fees and wasting my time. You may disagree with the law on this point--many do--but, the canoe company *may* have some liability hear. Given their status, they have a pretty well recognized duty to--at the very least--warn their customers of a known danger. If they knew their customers were regularly using that bridge in such a manner, they probably had a duty to warn them not to undertake that danger. That having been said, the canoe company is probably going to have a solid assumption of risk argument--most intelligent people walking on a train bridge would know that there is a risk involved. In any event, although my initial reaction to the NS suit was "frivolous" and the canoe company may well prevail, I don't think the suit against the canoe company is necessarily frivolous. I could certainly think of fact scenarios that the canoe company would have a rough time of it. Worse still, the canoe company could be up the creek without a paddle--I was just waiting to use that line. If it knew its customers were regularly using NS' bridge and provided no admonishments or other efforts to get them to desist, the likely result of this is NS countersuing the canoe company. There is a canoe company owner right now that is very nervous and is hoping that his payments on his liability insurance did not make it into the mail late. Gabe This is a great example of where I disagree with the law and I think that tort reform is badly needed - just because you rent something to someone (especially a common, mundane item like a canoe, we're not talking about a flamethrower) you shouldn't have to be responsible for how that person uses that item. I really think it's ridiculous how our laws are written in a way that the canoe company could possibly be sued for this... Additionally the lawsuit says that the canoe company knew that people jumped off that bridge - I'm guessing if it actually goes to court the plaintiffs would have to prove that the canoe company actually had knowledge of the jumping. I don't really have a position on this or agree or disagree with you. This kind of Tort law is not how I put food on my families' table and I hope not to be involved in this kind of tort . . . But, the purpose of tort law is not to promote personal responsibility or to make poeple act in an intelligent manner. The purpose is to reduce the cost of accidents in society. If an owner of a business knows his customers are acting in a manner that has a substantial probability to cause an injury, tort law imposes a duty upon him to attempt to prevent that injury. I would be surprised if all the tort reform in the world would nullify that maxim, as it is pretty well established. Tort reform is more aimed at minimizing the lawsuits that NS is currently experiencing. Like I said, there are affirmative defenses, but--generally--when you know someone is using your services in a manner that might lead to injury and someone gets injured, you are not going to have an easy time of it. Gabe
Sawtooth500So the purpose of tort law is to reduce the cost of accidents to society... so then how does the canoe company getting sued reduce the cost of accidents to society?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingSawtooth500So the purpose of tort law is to reduce the cost of accidents to society... so then how does the canoe company getting sued reduce the cost of accidents to society? I'd guess that no matter what the outcome of this lawsuit is in regard to the canoe company, there will be warning signs at the canoe company. Maybe, even at all the canoe companies that read about the suit will do the same. If you don't believe me, look at the label on your iron that says "Do not iron clothes while you are wearing them"
Sawtooth500Ha - anyone stupid enough to iron their clothes while wearing them deserved to get burnt. It's really sad that are tort laws are written in such a way that iron manufacturers actually have to put that label on them...
If a canoe company knows that its customers are trespassing on the land of another and there is inherent danger involved with that trespass, I don't think it is at all unusual that the canoe company is charged with the duty of making reasonable attempts to see to it that its customers are adequately warned of the danger.
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?
gabeBecause it gives the entity whose services led to the injury an incentive to make reasonable efforts to attempt to avoid injury.If a canoe company knows that its customers are trespassing on the land of another and there is inherent danger involved with that trespass, I don't think it is at all unusual that the canoe company is charged with the duty of making reasonable attempts to see to it that its customers are adequately warned of the danger. Gabe
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?
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?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton 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? 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?
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. So they had to know that there was a particularly high probability of somebody getting killed on that bridge.
It appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy.
As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case.
So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws.
Be careful what you wish for.
BucyrusIf 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?
First, the guy who died was an an invited guest for profit of the canoe company. Tort law imposes the highest duty for such people to take steps to avoid injury. Conversely, the guy's relationship to NS was that of a trespasser, which tort law imposes the lowest possible duty to take steps to avoid injury.
Thus, the canoe company will likely be charged with a high duty to protect the deceased whereas NS will likely be charged with a very low duty to protect the trespasser.
Second--and this defense may well absolve the canoe company--the law does not impose strict liability here. It only requires that a reasonable effort be made. If the canoe company admonished its customers not to trespass or otherwise use the bridge, it will--at the very least--have a defense against the lawsuit. NS will likely be held to even less--if any--of a burden.
To be clear, I am not saying the canoe company *IS* liable. I am merely contending that I could imagine a scenario in which it could be held liable--it knew its customers were engaging in health-threatening activity and did not take REASONABLE actions to protect its customers, like admonishing them not to trespass.
P.S. You guys are having a negative effect on me. I bought a big thing of drano and a small bottle of what I thought was drano to unclog my sink--thinking I did not need two big bottles. As it turns out the small bottle was meant to look like drano, probably so someone like me would buy it thinking it was drano.
I put both bottles in my sink not knowing they were two different chemicals. I am now typing this message from the hospital recovery room, and have a new empathy for WWI soldiers. Before you guys got a hold of me, I would have sued them. Now, I am just go to write a nasty letter to consumer reports--a lawsuit isn't worth the $2000 recovery I would get . . . .
jeatonI 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?
jeatonIt appears that many who have commented on this thread are quite ready to give up the right granted by our legal system allowing a person to sue for monetary damages anytime they feel they have been wronged by another party. All that because, so the argument goes, frivolous lawsuit and unreasonable settlements are a great burden on or society and economy. As I understand the process now, there is a certain line of defense against frivolous suits proceeding in that first, a plaintiff's attorney can advise a potential client that the suit is without merit, and second, a judge can summarily dismiss a lawsuit on the same grounds. That doesn't always happen, but if and when such a case goes to trial, ordinary citizens sitting on a jury get to participate in the judgement of the merits of the case. So it's cumbersome, but how would it change? In our system, the only entity that could establish rules restricting the filing of lawsuits without merit would be our government with the legislative branches passing the necessary laws. Be careful what you wish for.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.