From stories I’ve read that are similar to this one, by erecting a fence after an injury occurs, it could be argued in court the city of Orlando is admitting there’s a danger, and hence has a liability
Welcome D_Odds, to my list of posters not to read while sipping beverages.
I’m routing for the manure storage area.
<prediction>
Watch the parents try to turn around and sue Nike for promoting the trend in their commercials.
</prediction>
I hate it when people dodge responsibility.
That’s what I though, thanks.
btw Thespos, you’re right on the money with your prediction.
In related news, all cliffs in the United States will be disassembled and made into smooth ramps to prevent anyone from jumping off of them.
Apropos of nothing except maybe the idea that fences prevent jumps…
Cape Cod is attached to mainland Massachusetts by two bridges, both of which have very high chain link fences on either side. At either end of the bridges are signs with a phone number for the Samaritans.
I’m guessing some people really don’t like the idea of ending their vacations.
They’re erecting suicide barriers on the golden gate bridge too.
Actually, evidence of subsequent remedial measures like that are usually inadmissable to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or the like. The rationale why is just as you’d expect – if plaintiffs were allowed to say “well, of course they were negligent, they put up a fence afterwards!” people would be deterred from taking safety measures for fear of losing a lawsuit, which is backwards from the way it’s supposed to be.
Please don’t throw the virtual rocks at me, but…I’d want to hear more before I said anyone was definitely in the wrong for filing suit here. It sounds like the plaintiffs are relying on the “attractive nuisance” doctrine, which is an exception for children to the general rule that trespassers are owed no duty to make safe by the landowner. The first famous example establishing the doctrine was the “turntable cases” from the late 1800’s. The first such case railroad company knew that children were playing on one of the giant turntables that they rotated engines on, but they didn’t put any sort of latch on the turntables that would prevent the children from playing on them, figuring that it wasn’t their job to prevent the little trespassers from injuring themselves through their own foolishness. Well, the things were hellacious fun to play on, and the kids continued to until one got his arm caught between the platform and the turntable and it ripped it off.
So, even though it sounds like complete bullshit, but I’d want to know more before I said it definitely was. Did the parking garage know these kids were trespassing and doing nothing? Could they have erected a fence that would prevent them from doing this but just said “screw’ em, screw the law, if they die they die?” Maybe the garage owners are totally in the right here and deserve nothing less than a public apology for the lawsuit, but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought that there might be something more to it.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
Why is putting up a fence after the fact a mistake? They’re admitting partial culpability or something?
In Shakopee Mn, there was a woman roller blading & she went around an obstacle (some small building)in a park to some dis-used area, down over the hill, crashed & was injured, sued & won big money. City then puts up a chain fence. Next woman skates into the fence and is injured, sues wins. It is the tyranny of lawyers in No. America - lawyers have done 100,000,000 million times the damage to our freedoms and business than any terrorists. OBL is a minor irritation compared to the parasite lawyers.
Nah. the people who made the SCION commercial with the freeruners. And this is going to put me into quite a quandary over whom to root for, because I think the SCION is the stupidest-looking car since the PT Cruiser, and I want bad things to come to the folks who inflicted it upon the world.
Lawyers don’t do a damned thing that their clients don’t ask them to. Don’t blame them.
Sorry to inform you, but responsibility wasn’t dodged-instead responsibility was jumped by a band of marauding lawyers, severly beaten and left for dead, while numerous judges and juries looked on and did nothing. 
I think the fact the dipshit lives delivers a serious blow to anything Darwin argued.
In a few weeks a friend of mine is moving to a town near Orlando with three of her kids. She will be seeking employment as a law clerk once she settles in.
I wonder if her kids will be able to drum up any business for her? :smack:
You are aware of two lawsuits dealing with the same subject matter that reached what you believe to be incongruent conclusions. Therefore, lawyers are worse than Hitler.
I know you’re probably 100% correct (legally), but this kid of crap really makes me see red.
Someone is trespassing, so the owner has to incur the cost, time, hassle and lowered aesthetic values to erect barriers against trespass. What ever happened to “you got what you deserved” and “where were the parents?” and “that’ll learn you to screw around with other people’s property”?
Ugh.
Oh, no, wait…100,000,000 million times worse than Osama bin Laden, so lawyers are at least several million times worse than Hitler. :dubious: Must remember to murder me some babies on the way home.
I’m inclined to agree with you that from just what we know of the facts, it doesn’t sound like they have a case; you feel for the parents, but not everyone who gets hurt has a cause of action against someone else. Generally, (digging out the law school/bar prep crap here) the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable when there’s a dangerous artificial condition on the land that the owner knows of or should be aware of, when the owner knows or should know of children in the vicinity who are likely to trespass, when the condition is likely to cause injury (particularly when the child is unable to appreciate the risk), and when the expense of the remedy is slight compared to the magnitude of the risk (like putting a latch on a turntable). In other words, an owner doesn’t have to take all available heroic measures to minimize every little risk, just reasonable ones to prevent injury to children he knows or should know are trespassing.
I admit it doesn’t sound like that should apply here, these weren’t little children walking on to an unguarded construction site, these were teenages jumping between buildings at heights generally known by most rational persons (even teenaged ones) to cause serious injury or death when they are fallen from. All I’m saying is I’d be willing to at least listen to an argument to the contrary.
Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion A&E may be partially behind this. Yes, the television channel A&E, most noted for making biographies interesting. A few weeks ago I saw a program on something called “free running”, I think, which involves a team of young, trained athletes running, jumping, and performing various gymnastic maneouvers on public buildings, including jumping from rooftop to rooftop. I’ve got to admit, I’m 40 years old and female and I thought it looked pretty cool. The culmination of the show showed the team jumping over and around 7 buildings in London, including the Tate Gallery and St. Paul’s Cathedral. The show repeatedly stressed the importance of practice and training and that this could be a very dangerous sport. Indeed, one member of the team wasn’t able to participate as planned because he’d injured himself. I could see how that show could have inspired these young idiots.
That said, that’s exactly what these kids are: idiots. If you jump from one 6 story building to another and miss, you will get severly injured or killed. If you don’t want to get severly injured or killed, don’t do that. If you insist on doing so, don’t blame others for your own complete lack of anything resembling intelligence or common sense. Actions have consequences. The consequences of hitting a hard surface after a 6 story fall are highly unpleasant. That’s why people don’t do that! Sheesh!!
By the way, I found a link to information on free running, if anyone’s interested. Note the somewhat dire disclaimer.
CJ