| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2003 : 19:13:06
|
That's right, Kile. And if you happen to be a sweaty ol' sunburned adjuster, you can count on being able to take a good long nap in the central jury room while everyone else gets called to serve several times.
Oh, and one more thing, the best thing that could happen to Saddam is for a brain anuryism to burst wide open in the next 30 seconds. |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 10:17:48
|
Kile, I find it interesting and humorous at times, reading the strength of your convictions towards the legal system; particularily as noted in your opening post on this thread. I sense, with your stated contempt for the legal profession; that you could become a good 'gumshoe' liability adjuster or investigator.
Ghost's comments on 2/25, may have been in jest, but I feel a comment is warranted. "Were there no insurance money available, the cost of many things ...."; well simply there would be no 'things'; there would be no economy without insurance being available. Insurance is an absolute necessity - regardless of cost. Insurance is an industry, which allows all other indistries to exist.
Although the 'deep pockets' theory is rampant in North America, perhaps I can illuminate a bit on the Hilton Hotel exposure; as noted in your 2nd nominated stupidest lawsuit.
The Hilton was providing far more than a parking lot, when the unfortunate but amorous Mr. Harris, became 'road kill' on the Hilton premises. I don't know anything about the specific details of that Hilton premises, but the following may illustrate their exposure.
To establish a cause of action for negligence, several elements must be present. Looking at it in very basic terms, a plaintiff in a negligence action is entitled to succeed if 3 things are established to the satisfaction of a court. Consider them the "A,B,C's";
(A) A duty of care exists
(B) Breach of that duty occurred
(C) Casual relationship between the breach and damages is shown
Under common law, the duty of care in each case is considered individually to determine whether the conduct in question was reasonable under the circumstances. What is 'reasonable' will depend upon the standards applied.
Certain categories of persons or entities have been identified over the years as having a higher or specific duty of care in common law.
The common law duties that an occupier (Hilton) of property or premises owes to others has been developed from evolving precedents. An occupier is a person or entity who has the immediate supervision and control of the premises, and the power to admit or exclude entry by others.
Under common law, when persons are injured, their rights depend upon the circumstances under which they came to be on the premises.
A 'contractual entrant' to a premises, is a person who enters onto a premises under a contract with the occupier. A hotel guest or theater-goer, is a contractual entrant. The contract (hotel registration form blurp or a blurp on the ticket stub) may state the obligations of the occupier relating to the entrants safety. If so, that contract governs (usually). If not, the contract is deemed to have an implied term to the effect that the premises are as safe for the purpose as reasonable care and skill on the part of anyone can make them.
With our 'great system', the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; therefore plaintiffs must prove allegations of negligence (with several exceptions).
There are ample precedents regarding the duty of hotels / motels to their guests.
The last 10 years or so, saw the emergence of sexual assaults and other violent assaults in guest rooms; being deemed as negligence of the occupier due mostly to poor or inadequate door safety / lock systems - which led to the removal of the old 'pass key' systems and the emergence of the 'card lock' system.
Parking lots are well lit for a number of reasons beyond just the 'comfort' element. They are considered as essential to provide an element of safety; which is a duty owed.
Many hotels have extensive CCTV security systems, both monitoring inside and outside the premises building. This as well, is considered as a safety item and part of the duty owed.
Many hotels have nightwatchmen / security patrols of premises; considered as a safety consideration and part of the duty owed.
I believe that in time, the ex-wife of Mr. Harris will be successful in finding contributory negligence on the part of Hilton.
The actions of the jealous and aggrieved killer of Mr. Harris, on the Hilton premises, is not unlike - to some extent - any other unregistered user of the premises causing damage through vandalism to property of others on the premises; which Hilton has a heavy duty to protect against and attempt to avoid it happening.
I think we will see in time, details emerge concerning the security systems of Hilton, and the attempt to prove their inadequacy. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 10:35:04
|
| So what is Hilton supposed to do? Put sharp shooters on the roof to kill the driver of any car that seems as if it is about run over one of the guests? This is just plain stupid and completely unfair. Hilton is in no way responsible for the actions of an irrational woman and Hilton and it's stock holders should not be made to suffer because of a woman scorned. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 10:46:31
|
Oh, here is another example along the same lines. Here in Baton Rouge yesterday a plaintiff won her lawsuit against the city. In 1993 her 12 year old son was standing on the side of the road and a passing truck's sideview mirror hit him in the head, killing the boy. The plaintiff was awareded $1 million. While this is a tragic accident and I have every sympathy for the agrieved mother, how are the taxpayers of Baton Rouge on the hook for $1 million because the boy was obviously too close to the road and the driver of the truck was careless?
Below is a link to the story and by way of full disclosure, I know the attorney in this case and he shares a law office with a good friend of mine who is also an attorney. I haven't yet had the opportunity to ask him these questions but I will as soon as I see him.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=1150108 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Stupid Lawsuits
Forum Locked
