I don’t see a GD thread about this story yet, soooooo…
Water Stops for Illegal Aliens?
The short of the story is that some illegal immigrants have died while crossing through a portion of the Arizona desert. Their families are planning to sue the government, claiming that it had an obligation to place water stations along the way so that the illegal immigrants wouldn’t dehydrate.
The obvious objection that pops into my mind is: who owes a duty of care to someone acting illegally? As a person on the site comments, “This is sort of the case of someone stealing your car and then suing you because the brakes aren’t good.” Or, think of a case where a burglar breaks into your home, gets injured (for whatever reason), and then sues you for unsafe premises.
On the other hand, if the U.S. isn’t heavily patrolling this area, but has been letting immigrants knowingly slip through it, maybe it should put water stops out. It almost sounds like an implied consent kind of thing. (However, even that might be a goof on the part of the regional border patrol, and not the government itself.)
So…discuss.
Based on the name of this post, I thought it referred to thetunnel dug by drug smugglers near Nogales. 
I thought you could sue anyone for anything. And some people do. Your success, however, in a lawsuit is not guarnateed.
Make that ‘guaranteed’. Ugh.
Lawsuits like this are what gives attorneys a bad name.
Let’s look at what I think is a pretty good analogy. The government installs steel-core doors on one of its office buildings to prevent break-ins. Because the burgular can’t make it through the door, he decides to break a window to get it. He cuts himself on the broken glass and bleeds to death.
Is the government liable because they didn’t install safety glass on the windows? Of course not.
As for the fact that the Border Patrol wasn’t heavily patrolling this area, who cares? It’s not “implied consent.” The fact that the police rarely patrol a particular block is not “implied consent” to steal, rape, or murder on that block.
Sua
More of our taxpayer money will go down the drain defending this ludicrous lawsuit. Sigh
We have had some discussion on this before. This is the link.
My WAG is that the US would claim sovereign immunity (you can only sue the king when the king says you can sue him) and the claim would be dismissed in pretty short order if commenced in the US courts. A law suit in Mexican courts would run into the same problem. The International Court of Justice at the Hague is not a friendly forum. No real cost to the taxpayer to defend these things: the lawyers are already on the payroll at the Department of Justice or the State Department.