You know the quality of the members of the Bar is going down the tubes when a suit like this is filed: Lawsuit: Defendant Breached a Duty Not to Shoot Bottle Rockets Out of His Anus http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/02/bottle-rocket.html
Why not sue? The kid went to a frat party, got drunk, and attempted to shoot a bottle rocket out of his sphincter. It blew up, startled him, and he fell off the deck at the frat house - a deck that they claim was missing the railings around it. I'd sue. And when I won, I'd take the money, move away, and change my name, because I'd never be able to look anyone in the face again!
I don't understand what's wrong with this lawsuit. Someone was injured by someone's dumb behavior. What's the problem? Are you saying someone should be allowed to sue when stupid behavior hurts them?
Maybe you could explain what the problem is with this lawsuit? Why shouldn't a person in the Plaintiff's position sue?
In the current version of America suing under circumstances such as these is the normal thing to do. This speaks to the changes America has undergone as a culture. It also speaks to the change in the character of the legal profession. In a prior era the events on which the OP is based would have been a source of shame.
The plaintiff was injured by the negligent acts of the defendant(s). Grossly negligent acts. You expect the plaintiff to shoulder the burden for their injuries caused by the other people here? Who caused the injuries?
Lawyers? Or the law? Isn't it Conservatives who say there is too much interference by government changing things? So, there it is. The ability to sue at what could be considered something frivolous and also culpable negligence by the litigant.
I wish someone would answer my question using the facts in this case. What, exactly, about this case means it "could be considered something frivolous"?
Well, if you don't believe sticking something up one's arse and then firing away, I don't know what else could be considered as frivolous.
You are quite right from the perspective of a cog in a wheel. I'm referring to the case as a statement on the American bar and the culture it reflects. The explosion in the size of the bar has changed its nature and character. It's reach is everywhere in this era. The zeitgeist of the bar today is as much a cause as a symptom of cultural problems which have changed the nature and character of American society, politics and economy.
Sure, the act was frivolous. I was talking about the lawsuit. Why is this case a statement on the Bar? Someone was injured. They were injured by the stupidity and negligence of someone else. The fact that the negligent act was silly or might be gruesome to describe is not a reflection on anyone except the idiot who stuck the firework up his ass. I mean, one of the seminal cases on tort law, Pfalsgraff v. Long Island RR, was caused by some dope who thought it was a good idea to bring fireworks onto a public commuter train. What is the statement about the American Bar? What is the statement about the culture? Be specific. Because with empty non-answers like you just gave, I'm beginning to think you don't even know who is suing who over what in this case.
I understand where you're coming from on this. Back in the old days, anyone who stuck a bottle rocket up their ass, had it blow up, and then fall off a deck as a result, would have been too embarrassed to go to the hospital, much less hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. But, in this increasingly litigious society we live in, everything is fair game.
Just as I suspected, the people calling this lawsuit stupid and frivolous have absolutely no idea who is suing whom and for what in this case. Once again showing that lawyer haters are rooted in ignorance.
It's interesting to note that the plaintiff did not take reasonable care to ensure for his own benefit that the deck was safe, yet he is the complainant because he suffered partially from his own negligence. Frivolous, by both parties is right.
Umm... what? How was the plaintiff supposed to do that? And why would that be his responsibility? Are you saying before i enter any place I have a duty to inspect it and make sure there aren't any code violations or hidden dangers? I need to have an engineer or structural inspector following me around at all times who's qualified to do that? Again, I don't think anyone posting in this thread knows what is actually going on in this case aside from myself.
If I saw a deck that looked dangerous, I wouldn't place a foot on it. If a lawsuit can take place after the event, then the problem was there to be seen before the event.
Except that the average person cannot be expected to know when a deck is dangerous. That's why the law places the duty on the owner of the deck to ensure it's safety through proper maintenance and inspection. Not by an average person. Not even by an expert making only a cursory review, in some cases. You seem to have a perverse idea of the duty of care we owe to one another whereby you suggest that every person is absolutely responsible for their own safety in every situation, even those out of their control, and must take ridiculous measures to prevent being hurt. Let's say you walk onto my deck. It has a large, beefy-looking railing. You rest your hand on the railing and it gives way, causing you to fall 10 feet and crack your skull. Later, it turns out that my beefy-looking railing was only sitting on top of the deck, and was not secured to the base or surface by anything. In today's world of hidden screws and fasteners, you're saying that you would take responsibility for not knowing my railing was improper, and you wouldn't ask me to pay any of your bills or anything?
Bulls, will you admit you have a strong vested interest and wouldn't recognize a frivolous lawsuit is one arrived in your mail. I was in an accident, was uninjured, and received a letter from an attorney saying he had a chiropractor who was an expert at finding permanently disabling injuries and said, in red ink, "YOU MIGHT NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN". He was soliciting my business. Had I sued, would you consider that frivolous or just good business? I was sued in federal court because I did not hire a specific woman for a job. She sued for sexual discrimination and, of course, had a lawyer. The lawyers where I worked wanted to settle because lawyers are always sympathetic to frivolous lawsuits. I refused to settle and we went to court and the federal judge did feel the fact that I had hired a woman for the job made the plaintiffs argument silly. It's my opinion that all the loawyers involved, including the judges, are sympathetic to frivolo8us lawsuits. An extremely fat man rented a room in my father's motel. Sometime later, Dad heard him screaming and investigated. The fat man was on the floor and couldn't get up. Dad couldn't get him up. Dad and Mom couldn't get him up. Finally, with two other men, they got the fat S.O.B. up so he could race to his lawyer to sue because someone should have gotten his fat ass up faster. My dad didn't lose, of course, but it cost him thousands to defend himself from the legalized extortion. A lawyer and a man in a wheelchair formed a partnership. The man in the wheelchair goes around with a tape measure and camera and finds alleged violations of ADA. The lawyer promptly files and intent to sue without any warning to the business and just as promply accepts a setlement which he shares with the guy in the wheelchair. To the best of my knowledge, if someone actually decides to fight he drops his complaint. Legalized extortion. So, you wouldn't set foot on an unsafe deck but if someone does, he has a valid lawsuit? It's a mess but every yong lawyer wants his shot at the brass ring with bogus lawsuits like John Edwars had and parlayed into $29 million.
come on bootle rocket stupid everything else is commentary i think this case has no merit stop making a federal case over a guy who was a jackass and an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) the deck - heck the deck was the least of this guys' problems, I'd say.
Doubtful. I make my living recognizing and defending actions against businesses. Regardless, I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why this lawsuit is supposedly frivolous. As I said above, I think most people on this thread don't even understand who is suing whom and what they are alleging. No one can determine if a suit is frivolous except a court. I would expect that you would have no medical bills and no lost time from work, ergo the case wouldn't even make it to a lawsuit, because the attorney, no matter how questionable his ethics, wouldn't take your case. However, I don't really think this happened to you, given legal ethics prohibit such solicitation. LOL... Says who? I certainly am not. I'm known in my area of practice as something of a litigator, and certainly no friend to BS. When you make ignorant generalizations like that, it just shows your bias. So.... the system worked. What's your gripe? Which is, of course, a ridiculous opinion. But you're entitled to it. I highlighted the pertinent part. Once again, the system worked. If your gripe is that your dad had to spend money in legal fees, (1) that's between him and his attorney, (2) he should have had insurance to cover things like that [the most common way I come into a claim is when the liability insurer for a company calls my firm], and (3) the price of living in a free society is that people will be free to make unsustainable claims. Better to err on that side than on the side of having a society where parties are free to trample on other people with no recourse. Well, first, you've told me this before, and I question it's truthfulness. Second, if the business has not violated ADA, the person has no case and there's no grounds for any claim. It's not extortion, it's enforcement. If you don't like the fact that the ADA allows for aggreived individuals to enforce the Act, blame Congress. They wrote it. If the owner of the deck had a duty to ensure its safety to the person who was injured, yes. Again, how is a person who visits a place supposed to ensure the safety of the surfaces they are walking on? Bring an engineer around with them? Again, your bias is obvious. Every young lawyer? Hardly. One more person who does not understand the case. Or didn't read the article. Ignorance breeds contempt.
So, does anyone else want to explain what they think is happening here? I mean, everyone has gotten wrong who is suing who and what this claim is about, so are we ready for me to explain it, or do any of the previous posters have any additional e-feet they can stick into their e-mouths?
In the first place, I don't trust you, whoever you are. In your example, I would when walking to the edge, test the railing for resistance. It's not a deliberate intent on my part, but instinct. It's also why I have been driving a car for over 50 years and have never created an accident other than having been rear ended, twice, once when stationary, which can hardly be claimed as my error since the police had no problem on site. I anticipate. O.K., I'm sure you might claim that it's impossible for me to not have any problems in my life, but I have avoided them up to this point.