Good Bye to Common Sense

[maxpro2]

You missed the most important part of that case. It wasn't that the coffee was at X temperature or that McDonald's had been warned before, it was that the McDonald's corporation showed disdain (not just disinterest) for the woman and her injuries.

Read the transcripts. McDonald's completely and utterly blew her off. This attitude from the corporation towards a private citizen is what prompted the judge to level such a large fiscal punishment.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the judge actually awarded the plaintiff more than she was asking for. And I say good for him!

Are you talking about the pre-trial mediation? If so, that's how things work and I'm not sure what your point is. If you do not settle it in mediation, you go to trial...

As for the "judge dropping the hammer" ... this was a jury verdict. The jury awarded the damages, both actual and punitive. The judge reduced the damages substantially. In fact, federal judges CANNOT increase the damages that the jury awards.

So.. stop trying to Bill O'Reilly me.

 

[TrojanMan60563]

breaking my own rule by posting again, but I can't help it.

My neighbor is a lawyer and he told me not to shovel my sidewalks. It is the cities property and by me maintaining it I make myself liable. If I don't touch it and you fall and break your arm you can't sue me, but if I am the nice neighbor trying to make life easier for the people walking by, and shovel the sidewalk and you fall now you can sue me. Tell me that if some way fair or ok? You seem to have a way justifying everything in legal terms.

Or how about OJ, let me guess that is a prime example of our legal system at work?

 

[clemson357]

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in Bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student , only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived only by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights,*** I Want It Now,*** Someone Else Is To Blame,*** and ***I'm A Victim**

You forgot the 5th stepbrother: ***blindly following the corporate media.***

 

[clemson357]

The McDonals coffee case is one of the most egregious examples of media deception and outright distortion in History.

The woman had third degree burns on her genitals. Trial evidence showed that McDonalds had received thousands of complaints and reports of injury regarding their coffee, and that it was not an appliance malfunction but a company policy to keep the coffee so hot that it was dangerous. The reason: if your coffee is too hot to drink, you are less likely to ask for a refill. McDonalds willfully endangered people to save a few nickles and dimes on coffee refills.

Imagine a cup of coffee so hot it could do that to your genitals when poured over top of your pants.

 

[DOMS]

Are you talking about the pre-trial mediation? If so, that's how things work and I'm not sure what your point is. If you do not settle it in mediation, you go to trial...

As for the "judge dropping the hammer" ... this was a jury verdict. The jury awarded the damages, both actual and punitive. The judge reduced the damages substantially. In fact, federal judges CANNOT increase the damages that the jury awards.

So.. stop trying to Bill O'Reilly me.

I stand corrected. That's what I get for trying to do this from memory.

I've never watched, or listened to, anything from Bill O'Reilly, but I'm to take it that you're attempting to insult me?

 

[maxpro2]

//not going to address this because you this is not what the law is--write to your State Legislature if you want to bitch//

Secondly the two stories involving Chicago I know are true because I live here. So before you start spewing at the mouth about how everyone is an ignorant asshole maybe you should validate the source.

The fat kid story is true, and I know it because it was all over the radio the morning it happened. The home owners discovered the body and called the police. It was all over the news here. It was also later announced the family was seeking legal action against the home owners. I never said the people received money for it. If nobody received money for these types of lawsuits then people would't waste their time filing them.

Show me the actual legal cases then. As I already said before, the media often gets it wrong.

First off a building owner shouldn't have to warn people that you cannot pile people onto a wooden balcony. That is common sense. Nor should that man lose his property over a huge suit that could have been avoided if the kids used their heads...drunk or sober it doesn't change anything. Would you go to a lake with 80 of your friends to jump on the ice because the water is frozen? If you all fell through is the forest preserve at fault for your stupidity?

You're a fucking idiot. Being on a balcony, you expect it to not collapse. Your ice analogy is ridiculous. If it was open and obvious that the balcony could not hold the weight--if it was bending or swaying or making horrible noises, then the landlord would probably not be liable. But if it is a hidden danger, then absolutely he should be damn sure liable.

The US government already rewards ignorant stupid people by funding their mistakes i.e. having children while not being financial stable enough to feed and house themselves. I think the US might be the only country where ignorance pays. The guy working a honest job but cannot get healthcare goes without while some little idiot that pops out a kid gets full benefits for his child and himself, or herself.

Yeah being left a paraplegic is really cashing in on your ignorance...

The rest of your paragraph: this is not tort law, and doesn't concern my conversation. So bitch about this somewhere else.

I am getting off topic, but this country is sue happy and its for a reason, and that is because people have and do make money for SUPER lame shit. One more example of this and I am done. If you know anything about Chicago you have heard of Portillo's.... The owner was sued for serving a "pint scooner" of beer. A man was awarded something like $110,000 for being shorted a little beer. He took the mug and measured its capacity and it was shy of 16oz. So he sued AND HE WON. It is silly crap like that that puts small business owners out of business. Mr. Portillo isn't crying over it I am sure, but if that was a smaller place they could have lost everything.

I can only find news artciles about the case, and not the text of the case itself, so I can't go further than to say: this is a class action suit you are talking about. It was not one guy suing the restaurant, but a whole class of people who felt cheated. It seems as if Mr. Portillo was deceptive and fraudulently misrepresented a certain amount of beer as a larger amount of beer in order to profit more. It seems as if he did this systematically. If he did it at every one of his chain restaurants, these few ounces per beer could add up to a lot of money that people were cheated out of.

If you were at the gas pump, and you asked for $20 worth of gas but only got $19, wouldn't you be pissed off? What if you found out that this had been happening to you consistently over a long period of time? That is a lot of gas that you were cheated out of. And if this happened to a large amount of people, they absolutely have the right to bring a class action lawsuit as recourse. What other option do they have?

 

[maxpro2]

I've never watched, or listened to, anything from Bill O'Reilly, but I'm to take it that you're attempting to insult me?

Bill O'Reilly always trys to win a big argument by capitalizing on very minor points in an "AHA! Gotcha!" type attitude.

 

[DOMS]

Bill O'Reilly always trys to win a big argument by capitalizing on very minor points in an "AHA! Gotcha!" type attitude.

Ah then, just a barb. Got it.

For the record, I don't watch any political pundits. I prefer to do my own thinking.

 

[TrojanMan60563]

My reference to being on ice is not stupid. Its a very similar senario. You can go to any public forest preserve and find a lake/pond frozen around here. You grow having parents telling you not to walk on the ice because it is not safe. Does that mean you cannot? No but its at your own risk. A balcony is not intended to have bodies lined up on it like human storage. They are not built to support that type of use, and they are not intended for it either. If anyone is at fault it is the people not using the balcony for what it is intended for. Seriously doubt if a family of 8 walked out there it would have fallen. From the reports on the news there was no conclusive evidence it was out of proper working condition. The suit was about there not being a sign posted with a weight limit. My feeling is that wouldn't have changed how many people went out there. Just like if a case of beer came with a label that consuming more then two a day is unhealthy....its not going to stop people from drinking it all....same as people smoking...the label says it will kill you....people still do it.

Its not reasonable to assume tenants are going to pile people onto a small balcony in a manner it was not intended for. If the balcony broke with 6 people on it then I would agree the property manager should have known it was faulty. I don't feel it broke due to being faulty but rather misuse of the item.

It is not a companies responsibility to warn you of every way their product should NOT be used. If you hurt yourself doing something obviously not right then you shouldn't be able to pin that on someone because you are an idiot.


As for the beer thing I have had their "pint" beers and it wasn't much under. Its not like people are getting 12oz. How many times do you get a draft beer at the bar and end up with 3" of head? I feel robbed but I don't sue the bar for screwing me out of my money. I highly doubt Dick Portillo purchased thousands of these scooners with the intent of selling people less beer then they paid for. Just like I don't think the bartended purposely under poured my beer and filled it with head to screw me out of a few oz of my pint at the bar.

My point is somethings are not EXACTLY what is on the label. The 15.9oz scooner is probably sold as a pint glass from the maker. I am sure they are not trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. Have you ever noticed a penny of gas can be a few quick taps of the lever? So if you tap it once more then I do and get a few onces more am I getting screwed? Do you think when you pump gas you are getting EXACTLY 1 gallon when the digital says 1 gallon has been served? How close do you really think it is? Why don't you go find out! Maybe you can start the next biggest lawsuit in America!

 

[Yanick]

I just find it hilarious that Planters has a label on the back saying, contains peanuts...I doubt the company just put that label there considering its a container of peanuts, more likely it was threatened with a law suit or something of the sort by an opportunistic scumbag.

I forgot who, but someone used to have a sig that read something along the lines of;

Its not that stupidity should be illegal. I just say take the warning labels off of everything and let natural selection run its course.

 

[maxpro2]

I will not dignify the rest of your post with a response. It has too many assumptions, contradictions, and too much ignorance of the law. I will say this: walking on ice is inherently dangerous. Standing on a balcony is not.

I highly doubt Dick Portillo purchased thousands of these scooners with the intent of selling people less beer then they paid for.

This is what trials are for. This is why we present evidence, hear testimony, and allow the jury to come to a conclusion. If he in fact intended to fraud people, shouldn't he be punished?

If one could prove that a digital gas pump was frauding a large amount of customers on purpose, shouldn't the gas station be punished? These types of crooked business owners are out there. Such gas station lawsuits have been successfully brought before. The law protects the customer from such abuses. Are you seriously trying to argue that business owners who fraud customers should not be held liable?

But anyway, back to the point. The lawsuit, according to news sources, claimed this: 12 oz glass was really 10.6 oz. Assume 12 oz is $5. For each beer that the customer orders, he is being cheated out of $0.58. You don't think that adds up? What if the restaurant, throughout all of its chains, sold 1 million beers? That is gain of $580,000 alone through fraudulent and deceptive practices. They should get to keep that? It shouldn't go back to the customers in a class action?

 

[maxpro2]

I just find it hilarious that Planters has a label on the back saying, contains peanuts...I doubt the company just put that label there considering its a container of peanuts, more likely it was threatened with a law suit or something of the sort by an opportunistic scumbag.

I doubt it, and could not find any information. Such a case would get thrown out of court so fast it wouldn't even be funny.

What is more likely is they did it to compy with a statute. For example, the 2004 Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act requires a warning if the product contains certain allergens, such as peanuts. Since the drafters of this statute were concerned with many allergens, not just peanuts, they probably did not think to add an "actual peanut exception" for brands such as Planters. The warning is silly, I know, but it is likely that Planters decided to just put the warning on there to comply with this staute, and also you can never warn too much.

You might say that they had warnings long before 2004. I think I saw an FDA regulation from 1996, it is possible that it was just updated in 2004. It is also possible that individual states passed their own regulations way before the federal regulations were passed, and Planters wanted to play it safe so it could continue to sell in those states without facing any penalty.

 

[Yanick]

However the label came about it still is an example of how much crap is in our legal system. I'm not trying to demonize anything/body here. I love this country, but i know its not perfect, whether it be the legal system, the medical system whatever it is. There is always room for improvement.

I think the point of this whole thread is readily seen on the back of Planter's peanuts containers. I don't know how the label got there, but just the very fact that the company would fear being sued/penalized or what have you and put that label there goes to show just how much BS goes on sometimes.

 

[maxpro2]

However the label came about it still is an example of how much crap is in our legal system. I'm not trying to demonize anything/body here. I love this country, but i know its not perfect, whether it be the legal system, the medical system whatever it is. There is always room for improvement.

I think the point of this whole thread is readily seen on the back of Planter's peanuts containers. I don't know how the label got there, but just the very fact that the company would fear being sued/penalized or what have you and put that label there goes to show just how much BS goes on sometimes.

What I got from this thread is that there are a lot of ignorant people who will blindly and readily believe any kind of rumors, hearsay, or media reports without saying, "Hey wait a minute... that doesn't sounds right" and then looking it up.

There is your lack of common sense

 

[TrojanMan60563]

I will not dignify the rest of your post with a response. It has too many assumptions, contradictions, and too much ignorance of the law. I will say this: walking on ice is inherently dangerous. Standing on a balcony is not.

You are a serious tool. Walking on ice is not dangerous when the ice is thick enough to support X amount of weight. A balcony is not made with the idea it will be packed full of people. It is a seating area and in most cases not large enough for more then 6 peopel here in chicago, and maybe 10 if you are lucky. How they stuffed so many people out there is a trick all of its own, but the bottom line is the balcony was not designed to have that many people on it. Nobody with an ounce of brains would assume you can load as many people on a small balcony without their being an issue. If not one person thought for a minute they might have too many people out there then they deserved to fall. Just like if you want to walk on the ice or go ice fishing you find out how thick the ice is before you walk on it. To prove my point under the right conditions people drive cars on the ice but I am sure they made sure it was OK first. Common Sense....the topic of this thread...would tell me that before I assume its ok to pack my friends on a wooden balcony I should consider if that is safe. Bottom line is people used a the balcony beyond what is reasonable and it broke. The owner of that building shouldn't pay for their stupidity. If the wood was rotten then I would agree it is their lack of upkeep that cause the issue, but the facts are it was too many people piled onto it that made it colapse. The owner shouldn't have to post the obvious on each balcony to avoid this type of thing and being sued for it. What is next? Someone sits on the railing and falls to their death and its the poor land owners fault for not posting a sign do not sit up there? My point is people need to use their own head and make good judgement calls. Obviously they were not thinking when they piled their friends out there. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[maxpro2]

You are a serious tool. Walking on ice is not dangerous when the ice is thick enough to support X amount of weight. A balcony is not made with the idea it will be packed full of people. It is a seating area and in most cases not large enough for more then 6 peopel here in chicago, and maybe 10 if you are lucky. How they stuffed so many people out there is a trick all of its own, but the bottom line is the balcony was not designed to have that many people on it. Nobody with an ounce of brains would assume you can load as many people on a small balcony without their being an issue. If not one person thought for a minute they might have too many people out there then they deserved to fall. Just like if you want to walk on the ice or go ice fishing you find out how thick the ice is before you walk on it. To prove my point under the right conditions people drive cars on the ice but I am sure they made sure it was OK first. Common Sense....the topic of this thread...would tell me that before I assume its ok to pack my friends on a wooden balcony I should consider if that is safe. Bottom line is people used a the balcony beyond what is reasonable and it broke. The owner of that building shouldn't pay for their stupidity. If the wood was rotten then I would agree it is their lack of upkeep that cause the issue, but the facts are it was too many people piled onto it that made it colapse. The owner shouldn't have to post the obvious on each balcony to avoid this type of thing and being sued for it. What is next? Someone sits on the railing and falls to their death and its the poor land owners fault for not posting a sign do not sit up there? My point is people need to use their own head and make good judgement calls. Obviously they were not thinking when they piled their friends out there. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

I'm not sure how this case was resolved. It may even be ongoing. But from all the online news reports I watched, it seems as if the failure of the balcony was not due to the "packing of the people" but rather negligent construction. Look it up, there were serious design flaws with this balcony. It seems as if a lawsuit would be centered around this negligent construction theory, not a duty to warn of the weight limit.... although if the owner did know of the actual weight limit because of the way it was negligently designed, and did not disclose it, that could certainly be an alternate theory of liability.

Also, one balcony collapsed directly onto another balcony, which is why so many people were injured. All of those injured weren't necessarily on that top balcony which collapsed.

Experts said that if the balcony were not built negligently, and followed building codes (there were MANY violations) that this unfortunate occurrence, which killed at least 12 people, would not have happened.

12 people are dead because of violations of the building code. If it weren't for these violations, the balcony would have been able to hold that many people. What is your issue here with the case? I think this is pretty clear cut actually.

 

[TrojanMan60563]

This is what trials are for. This is why we present evidence, hear testimony, and allow the jury to come to a conclusion. If he in fact intended to fraud people, shouldn't he be punished? YES

If one could prove that a digital gas pump was frauding a large amount of customers on purpose, shouldn't the gas station be punished? These types of crooked business owners are out there. Such gas station lawsuits have been successfully brought before. The law protects the customer from such abuses. Are you seriously trying to argue that business owners who fraud customers should not be held liable? I would bet money gas pumps are not accurate, and for sure not across the board.

But anyway, back to the point. The lawsuit, according to news sources, claimed this: 12 oz glass was really 10.6 oz. Assume 12 oz is $5. For each beer that the customer orders, he is being cheated out of $0.58. You don't think that adds up? What if the restaurant, throughout all of its chains, sold 1 million beers? That is gain of $580,000 alone through fraudulent and deceptive practices. They should get to keep that? It shouldn't go back to the customers in a class action? You mentioned above the person/business shorting people on purpose. My point is the burden of guild falls on the jury to decide if someone knowing scammed their customers. Like I mentioned Dick Portillo probably purchased thousands of these at a time and I would venture to say it was advertised at a pint scooner. If it doesn't hold quite a pint I don't see it being such a huge deal. Like I said millions of people get shorted at bars daily for their beer purchases. Millions of dollars of head take up space where beer should be. If I buy a 21oz beer should I measure it to make sure I am not getting shorted? In good faith I know the bartender is pouring me an honest beer. At the same token I don't think a 1.4 loss of beer is in a Portillo's mug is that big of a deal. I still drink their beers and it still costs the same so the two lames that wanted to get rich for being shorted 1.4oz of beer didn't change anything but a sign.

 

[maxpro2]

Of course it comes down to the jury! Why do you think I have been saying "if he was fradulent" "if he did this on purpose" "it seems..." This is prima facie argumentation, not what the actual outcome will be. For all we know there is some hidden evidence somewhere that will make the jury decide the complete opposite way.

If it can be proven that he purposefully did this fraudulent act, and he sold 1 million beers, cheating customers out of $0.58 a beer, do you honestly think you should be entitled to keep the $580,000? Seriously? He should be rewarded for fraud?

If it can be proven that the builder violated standards and building codes while building the balcony, and if this was a direct cause of the 12 deaths, and had the balcony been up to code and built correctly this accident would never have occurred... do you honestly think the owner should not be liable? Really?

 

[TrojanMan60563]

I'm not sure how this case was resolved. It may even be ongoing. But from all the online news reports I watched, it seems as if the failure of the balcony was not due to the "packing of the people" but rather negligent construction. Look it up, there were serious design flaws with this balcony. It seems as if a lawsuit would be centered around this negligent construction theory, not a duty to warn of the weight limit.... although if the owner did know of the actual weight limit because of the way it was negligently designed, and did not disclose it, that could certainly be an alternate theory of liability.

Also, one balcony collapsed directly onto another balcony, which is why so many people were injured. All of those injured weren't necessarily on that top balcony which collapsed.

Experts said that if the balcony were not built negligently, and followed building codes (there were MANY violations) that this unfortunate occurrence, which killed at least 12 people, would not have happened.

12 people are dead because of violations of the building code. If it weren't for these violations, the balcony would have been able to hold that many people. What is your issue here with the case? I think this is pretty clear cut actually.

When you buy a house you purchase it in good faith things are within code. If the balcony was not built correctly you can hardly pin that on the owner as if he should have known. It was clear that too many people were on the balcony to start with faulty construction or not. The parents of these kids want someone to pay for it and it sure as hell shouldn't be the owner of the building if it is determined to be a construction flaw that he didn't know about, or couldn't have avoided. The sad thing is the owner is the easy target as who is going to be able to track down the company that installed it, and if the company that built the buildings was done subcontracted then god only knows who is at fault. I am 100% it wasn't the owner out there with tools and wood making an unsafe, poorly designed balcony. If the owner ends up paying that is a sorry day.......You say the balcony was engineered incorrectly according to what standard? Is there a weight limit? If so was it being exceeded? I don't think it matters either way...if it was over the limit the kids are at fault....if it wasn't over the limit you can hardly pin it on the guy that owns the building if he didn't build it.

 

[maxpro2]

When you buy a house you purchase it in good faith things are within code. If the balcony was not built correctly you can hardly pin that on the owner as if he should have known. It was clear that too many people were on the balcony to start with faulty construction or not. .

I stopped reading here.

1) The owner of the property was directly responsible for this balcony. He built it. He chose not to follow the code. Even if he didn't he is under a duty to inspect the premises and make sure they are safe before renting them out. Good faith my ass. If you buy a property, and it has a dangerous condition that you knew or should have known about, it is your duty to fix it. Period.

2) If it can be proven that the builder violated standards and building codes while building the balcony, and if this was a direct cause of the 12 deaths, and had the balcony been up to code and built correctly this accident would never have occurred... do you honestly think the owner should not be liable? Really?

 

[TrojanMan60563]

Of course it comes down to the jury! Why do you think I have been saying "if he was fradulent" "if he did this on purpose" "it seems..." This is prima facie argumentation, not what the actual outcome will be. For all we know there is some hidden evidence somewhere that will make the jury decide the complete opposite way.

If it can be proven that he purposefully did this fraudulent act, and he sold 1 million beers, cheating customers out of $0.58 a beer, do you honestly think you should be entitled to keep the $580,000? Seriously? He should be rewarded for fraud?

If it can be proven that the builder violated standards and building codes while building the balcony, and if this was a direct cause of the 12 deaths, and had the balcony been up to code and built correctly this accident would never have occurred... do you honestly think the owner should not be liable? Really?

I agree a business shouldn't profit off scams etc..Obviously if they can prove Portillo knowingly spent money on glasses smaller then what he advertised he shouldn't make money that way.

I agree if a builder made the balcony out of code you can only go after the person making it. They are the only person obligated to ensure things are within code. Maybe incorporate the city into the suit as well since I am sure with commerical property they send out inspectors to make sure things are done correctly during each phase of building. What I am saying is the last person that should pay is the poor guy owning the buildings trying to make a living or a retirement. He is most likely the one that is going to lose everything he has over those kids dying.

 

[maxpro2]

The sad thing is the owner is the easy target as who is going to be able to track down the company that installed it, and if the company that built the buildings was done subcontracted then god only knows who is at fault

You are a fucking idiot and have no clue how the legal system works. If this is the case, that a subcontractor fucked up... the property owner will either implead him (bring him) into the case or if he loses the case, SUE THE SUBCONTRACTOR IN A SEPARATE TRIAL FOR THE DAMAGES THAT HE HAD TO PAY. What is important is that the injured parties get a recovery. The contractor and the subcontractor can fight it out after the fact.

What you are basically saying is that since we cannot prove who caused it, the contractor or the subcontractor, they are both innocent. Nope, that's not how our legal system works.

 

[maxpro2]

He is most likely the one that is going to lose everything he has over those kids dying.

Ah yes, the poor retiree whose negligence allegedly cause 12 deaths. What a pity.

No, actually. If he is not to blame he will have recourse. He can sue the subcontractor or the city as you said, or even the person who sold him the property to pay the damages that he was liable for!

 

[TrojanMan60563]

I stopped reading here.

1) The owner of the property was directly responsible for this balcony. He built it. He chose not to follow the code. Even if he didn't he is under a duty to inspect the premises and make sure they are safe before renting them out. Good faith my ass. If you buy a property, and it has a dangerous condition that you knew or should have known about, it is your duty to fix it. Period.

2) If it can be proven that the builder violated standards and building codes while building the balcony, and if this was a direct cause of the 12 deaths, and had the balcony been up to code and built correctly this accident would never have occurred... do you honestly think the owner should not be liable? Really?

Ok dude, you invite friends to your own private residence and your patio falls off the house and your friends are badly injured. Turns out the people that built your house constructed it wrong....bad engineering. Are you at fault? Should you know any better? You paid someone to build you a house that is not in violation of codes and constructed properly. Would you be ok with your friends taking you for all you are worth because some builder took some shortcuts? Based off what you are saying you should have known better as the owner of the property. I am sure neither of us are structural engineers and wouldn't know if something like that was done correctly or out of code. You shouldn't be the one liable IMO. Logic should tell us all that nobody would intentionally buy a property knowing its out of code. You wouldn't buy a house knowing the builder screwed things up, and chances are would never know the difference, and that is why builders do it and get away with it. But to say you should pay for the builders errors is crazy.

 

[maxpro2]

Ok dude, you invite friends to your own private residence and your patio falls off the house and your friends are badly injured. Turns out the people that built your house constructed it wrong....bad engineering. Are you at fault? Should you know any better? You paid someone to build you a house that is not in violation of codes and constructed properly. Would you be ok with your friends taking you for all you are worth because some builder took some shortcuts? Based off what you are saying you should have known better as the owner of the property. I am sure neither of us are structural engineers and wouldn't know if something like that was done correctly or out of code. You shouldn't be the one liable IMO. Logic should tell us all that nobody would intentionally buy a property knowing its out of code. You wouldn't buy a house knowing the builder screwed things up, and chances are would never know the difference, and that is why builders do it and get away with it. But to say you should pay for the builders errors is crazy.

Read my above post. You would implead him or sue him in a separate trial to make him pay the damages that you had to pay. There is recourse here.

 

[TrojanMan60563]

Oh and so from your above comment you should lose your house and everything you own until you can get through a seperate suit (which takes years) to recoup the money and assets you lost because they fucked up your house? If you agree with that logic you need help.

The injured should determine who is at fault, and the only person in court should be the guilty party, not you or this man because they are unfortunate enough to own the property.

 

[maxpro2]

Oh and so from your above comment you should lose your house and everything you own until you can get through a seperate suit (which takes years) to recoup the money and assets you lost because they fucked up your house? If you agree with that logic you need help.

Impleading happens in the same suit. It is all settled at once.

The injured should determine who is at fault, and the only person in court should be the guilty party, not you or this man because they are unfortunate enough to own the property.

This is what lawsuits are for. How on earth could they know who was to blame without discovery? Yes, go wikipedia discovery if you need to.

Say the owner impleads the subcontractor. During discovery it is found that it is not the owner's fault. He will be dismissed from the case and it will go on against the subcontractor.

In fact, go wikipedia a lot of shit. This conversation is getting way too ignorant for me to continue to participate in.

 

[maxpro2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law) start here pal

 

[TrojanMan60563]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law) start here pal

I hope some trick or treater busts their ass on a crack in your walkway...you seem to be such a big fan of this system we have where nobody is responsible for their own actions, and the reations of their actions, and someone is going to pay for their stupidity.

I don't spend my life looking for ways to sue for money, and I certainly don't want to spend my life looking for ways to stop people from sueing me for their own poor choices, or inability to walk without tripping on my property etc...Or god forbid my dogs kills some moron for taking a "shortcut" over my 8 food privacy fence that obviously is not in place to keep them out, and they should be ensured a safe passing through my property that is obviously gated for no reason. Or maybe the dogs won't be out and they just fall while taking a "shortcut" and break their arm....I better go install some safety net to make sure they don't get hurt....because once again that 8 foot fence is just for decoration....I really expect people to cut through the yard to avoid walking around my property.

 

[maxpro2]

I hope some trick or treater busts their ass on a crack in your walkway...you seem to be such a big fan of this system we have where nobody is responsible for their own actions, and the reations of their actions, and someone is going to pay for their stupidity.

Ah the classic "I can't make any sense so 'you're stupid'" ad hominem argument. Touché.

I don't spend my life looking for ways to sue for money, and I certainly don't want to spend my life looking for ways to stop people from sueing me for their own poor choices, or inability to walk without tripping on my property etc...Or god forbid my dogs kills some moron for taking a "shortcut" over my 8 food privacy fence that obviously is not in place to keep them out, and they should be ensured a safe passing through my property that is obviously gated for no reason. Or maybe the dogs won't be out and they just fall while taking a "shortcut" and break their arm....I better go install some safety net to make sure they don't get hurt....because once again that 8 foot fence is just for decoration....I really expect people to cut through the yard to avoid walking around my property.

Do you honestly think these kids were trying to sue for money? 12 people died because of faulty construction that was in violation of codes! If there wasn't faulty construction, there would have been no collapse with that same number of people on the balcony. You are fucking ignorant as hell if you cannot realize this.

You are concerned about the old man with his life savings in retirement. Well 1) the old man pays insurance and 2) he killed 12 people to save a buck.

Without Warning, Chaos, Who's To Blame For A Chicago Porch Collapse That Killed 13 People? - CBS News
a more thorough city inspection discovered that the porch was riddled with building code violations. In fact, a 48 Hours investigation found that those defects dangerously weakened the whole porch structure.

48 Hours also learned that all the porch’s floor beams were made with undersized lengths of wood, and the screws that ripped out of the wall during the collapse were shorter than they should have been.

Plus, the porch was built illegally without a building permit. As a result, it was 50 percent bigger than allowed.

There would have been no collapse if this guy did not try to cut corners. You are criticizing a legal system that finds a cheap old fuck liable whose cheap actions kill 12 people? What if that were your son and you had all this evidence of negligent construction. Would you still say "Yep, my boy... what a little shit, he deserved to die no matter how badly built the balcony was."

Your dog example most likely wouldn't fly. They are trespassers onto your property, you owe them no duty of care, especially not for open and obvious dangers like your dog... the dog being present in the yard is an open and obvious risk, and no warning is thus necessary. Furthermore, they will have assumed the risk of entering your property knowing that a large dog was there. No recovery for the killed trespasser here.

If the trespasser falls and breaks his arm, you are not liable. You don't owe any duty of care to such trespassers.

Dude, the law is pretty damn just. You pulling out random examples from your ass and justifying in your fucked up little mind that anyone can sue you for anything and win is a little insane, in my opinion. You should probably see a therapist.