I don’t know - I think six stories is high enough to expect people to know enough to not jump off of it. By your reasoning, every building over 10 feet high* would require fencing to keep people from jumping off of it.
*Alberta Construction Safety Laws require fall protection for any worker working over 10 feet off the ground.
Yeah, but so what? Why is it the garage’s responsibilty to make the actions of morons impossible? Why aren’t the morons responsible for the actions that they voluntarily take??
I disagree about blaming the lawyers.
I am going to make an assumption here. That is that you would agree that some law suits are valid. Do you agree?
Now why should the lawyer be the one to judge the worthiness of a particular suit?
There is no reason. That is for a judge and a jury to decide.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Any structure with a window, by this logic, is a hazard waiting to happen, and all windows must now have protective gates in front of them.
Car manufacturers get faulted when they make an inherently dangerous product (Pinto, Firestone tires, etc.). They do not get faulted when a moron has a .20 BAC and decides he wants to play Need for Speed in his car (unless its a Pinto with Firestone tires, in which case someone will try to hold the manufacturer jointly liable :rolleyes:).
Just because idiots want to prove they’re manhood (as one rarely finds women engaging in such stupid shit) by feats of derring-do doesn’t mean that the world needs to sanitize itself to protect them. In my neck of the woods, we get subway surfers. Generally, these are teens who think it is cool to ride on top of a subway car. Great rush, until you get to that tunnel/overpass with a low clearance. It’s not the subway’s fault when an accident occurs with a surfer, nor is it the garage’s fault. It is wholly the fault of the idiot actively searching for unsafe pasttimes. Next time, let them play Russian Roullette. I’m sure that the parents would then blame the gun manufacturers.
I’m not saying they’re liable, just that it’s a slightly less ridiculous target for the parents’ lawsuit.
The building was there because it’s a parking garage. It’s for parking cars. The video is all about running around on ledges and making death-defying jumps from one tall building to another. The point of the video is to share this “sport” with a viewing audience.
Those kids could have jumped off any building in town, and they happened to use the parking garage. Sure, they could have had a fence or a “please don’t jump off me” sign up on the ledge, but then the kids would have jumped off something else if they’d really wanted to.
Not that I think anyone should be sued at all. If these kids are so dumb as to think they can do stunts like this and not get themselves hurt, I don’t see how they should be entitled to a payoff from the owners of the garage, the makers of the video, or anyone.
No, this is not true. A more accurate statement is “Any building ledge or window that has a documented history of people jumping out of it where there is no indication that this behavior will stop must have a protective gate or fence.”
Are there really very many cases where there is a documented history of people jumping off of 10 story buildings? Of course not. So why make this unsupportable and provocative accusation?
Human decency? The thought that if in society we know something is dangerous we work to fix it so more people don’t get hurt?
What if your neighbor left a loaded gun next to the sidewalk in front of his house? A kid picks it up and narrowly misses killing his buddy. Would you say “Dumb kid, don’t you know that guns kill people?” or “Holy crap! I can’t believe he left a loaded gun on the sidewalk!” What if you neighbor did it again and the kid was killed? Would you say “Dumb kid, don’t you know that guns kill people?” or “Holy crap! I can’t believe he left a loaded gun on the sidewalk again!! He knew someone was likely to get hurt.”
Wouldn’t your response be a combination of these two factors? Shouldn’t the blame be accorded to both parties also?
Sorry, still not buying it. Those teenagers knew that falling from a six-storey garage would hurt or kill them - they simply didn’t care. People know that high structures are dangerous - you can’t build a fence around the top of every building in the world to keep people from falling off of them. A six-storey garage that doesn’t have a protective fence around the top is not the same as a loaded gun left lying on the sidewalk.
I’m not buying it, either. This isn’t some normally harmless fun activity that went horribly wrong, nor was it bunch of kids stumbling across something whose danger was not fully understood (as might be the case of young kids finding a gun, or playing in a roundhouse). The participants were building-hopping because it is dangerous. Had they simply wanted to practice their leaping skills, they could find or build structures that were the correct distance apart yet lower to the ground.
How about the kid having the decency not to jump off of a parking garage and then sue the owner? Jesus. The kid was a dipshit, the parents are dipshits. Stop defending the indefensible. There is nothing dangerous about parking garages unless you are stupid enough to jump off of one. If you do that and get hurt, I reckon that you deserve it.
Psssst, Cypher.
Speaking of INSANE things pertaining to law, I present the fall of the republic.
http://komonews.com/stories/35494.htm
:eek:
Yes, some lawsuits are valid. I hold that a barrister is the gatekeeper, one whose job is to turn away those concepts without validity, without sufficient fabric to clothe themselves, instead of flinging shit against the wall of legality to see what will stick.
An attorney has a duty to the populace at large to toss someone out on their ass because the concept they’ve brought into his or her office is so odious that it should never enter a courtroom.
Alluding again to my profession, if a customer asks me to build something that I deem to be structurally unsound, it’s my job to tell the customer, “NO” rather than acceding to their demands.
I don’t think so. It’s the job of the barrister to assure legal representation, that every claimant has his day in court. It is not up to the barrister to filter the cases - in the criminal cases, the CPS (in the UK) decides if a case has merit, but that’s because the public money is spent on providing defence/prosecution/court costs.
In private law cases, there is no reason why someone should not have the chance to test the law, since he will pay for the court fees and lawyer fees. I understand that the US system favours the claimant in that there is no win no fee, but the defence still has to pay their own - well, it’s either that or the other way around, so I guess it’s a policy decision by the govt.
Why shouldn’t this, or any, crap case not get to the courts? If it is indeed as crap as you think, it’ll get thrown out of court, and the claimant will have to pay costs. If it is NOT, however, and the judge decides that the case has some merit, then if the barrister has prevented the case from going to court, the BARRISTER would have in effect, legislated. I find Judicial Legislation repugnant enough, imagine if the barristers, who have absolutely no justification at all, had the power to in effect legislate?
Also, if you’re arguing from the consumer perspective, all the barrister can do is to advise the claimant. If the claimant does not take the advice, the barrister is still duty bound to follow the instruction of the client. Unlike your building a structurally unsound building example, merely bringing a case to court serves an important function, that of either confirming or clarifying the law, by the means of case law. No one will get hurt by bringing crap cases, except maybe for the defendant, in the US context.
I’m sure that even in the US, if someone insists on bringing crap cases as a form of harrassment, or brings an exceedingly crap case, the court can rule comtempt of court by abuse of legal prceedings, and fine the claimiant.
Because fear of being taken to court can be very influencial on products and services.
Filter the damn case out before it gets to the court.
And who gives a shit about him anyway. :dubious:
When the courts adopt a “Loser Pays” system, then maybe I’d agree with you.
Speaking as a vaguely liberal type.
Screw em. Anyone stupid enough to pull these stunts deserve anything that happens to them. There is no way to protect stupid people from themselves and no way others should be footing safety bills because of said stupid people.
Find some way to transfer the cost to the morons whose behaviour necessitates stupid levels of safety precautions. Fine the shits and hit them full whack for all the costs involved with their actions. Hospital, police etc.
Being a fucking moron should be a criminal offence. As should ‘aiding and abetting a moron with stupid law suits’.
</end liberal rant>
I blame Jackie Chan.
Its very true.
Jumpers rarely make the news around here, just like the people who choose suicide-by-subway (and I’m not talking about the thrill-seekers). As we have many buildings with six or more stories, the jumpers are distributed throughout the city. However, there is a history of jumpers. Therefore, no building should have a window that is exitable. This could, of course, be a problem during a fire.
NYC has taken measures to protect young children (which does not include teenagers). Child guards must be made available to any residents with young children, as their boisterous, clumsy playstyles lead to true accidents, without any intent nor conscious effort at being an idiot. These guards will not stop anyone intent on jumping; they are there to prevent accidents.
The jumpers in the story did not have an accident. They made a very deliberate attempt to jump. If you want to jump, try track & field.
Wouldn’t that suggest that this, instead, is the real problem? The US has made a consious decision to favour the litigant at the expense of the defendant, unlike the UK, where it’s the other way around. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but it is a tradeoff, and one that can only be decided by political means. Having such as system and blaming the claimant for using it is pointless.
In this particular case, I think that the claimant has at least a possible claim. It has been ruled that if a particular piece of property (or things on that property) are “alluring” to children, that extra care needs to be taken to prevent children from injuring themselves on that property. Things like a construction site, etc have been categorised as allurements, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if the video was brought as evidence that garages are alluring to jump off, and if reasonable precautions were not in place, like fencing, then the garage could very well be held liable.
Do I think that’s a good outcome? Hell no. It’s already annoying enough to have signs everywhere. But that’s the law as it stands, and the majority want to protect idiots from themselves, and jack up prices for everyone else through increased insurance premiums.
Therefore,
This is actually a plausible lawsuit, and they have a chance of winning. After that, it’s a political problem.
Even if they didn’t, having a barrister as a screen is far worse then the alternative. Imagine a bigot lawyer, oppressed minorities by imbalance in the numbers of lawyers, etc. The defendant still has many avenues of recourse, like legal aid, a motion for striking out even before trial, contempt of court, malicious prosecution, etc.
Not gonna do it.