GW-they do have token sellers in booths. As I recall, the man was suicidal & suddenly jumped in front of the oncoming subway car. His legs were severed. I believe his cause of action was “The train operator should have stopped in time.” Actually, there was truly no chance of that. It settled I think for the reason I gave.
doctordoowop, welcome to GQ – “as I recall” doesn’t cut it. It’s appropriate to provide a cite, maybe not in the first instance but certainly after the veracity of your assertion was called into question.
You say the events occurred in 1986 or thereabouts so it ain’t this one (which purports to reflect a story carried in The New York Times on 25, June 2002 – yet NYT’s online database didn’t seem to have it), perhaps it is this one (see “Those Crazy Cases” half way down), but the details are sketchy, and the story is covered elsewhere on the site with differing details.
A story in the New York Times I would probably believe; a story, sparce on details, from “Law-Abuse Fortnightly” probably not; here with an “as I recall” from fifteen years ago, fuggedaboudit.
You may well be perfectly correct about the story, but how am I meant to know that? So do some research and provide a cite, please?
Pretty please?
This also works both ways. I remember a case where a man basically did the same thing with a freight train and lost his legs. The locomotive engineer sued the guy for mental anguish or something for being forced to partake in his suicide attempt. Of course, you aren’t going to win too much from some broke loser with no job, no money and no legs.
I think one of the problem with these urban legend type cases is that they are simplified into one line blurbs that sound ridiculous out of context. “Womoan sues over hot coffee” sounds silly because we all know coffee is supossed to be hot. It’s not supposed to be third degree burns hot though.
There could be a merit to the NYC subway guys case. While a subway does not stop on a dime, the driver should be able to notice a stationary object on the tracks ahead of the train.
I suspect that most judges are reasonable people so there must be a reason some of these cases make it to court. Then again, I have learned never to underestimate human stupidity.
What would the basis for such a suit be? How would I be negligible?
I’ll bet that in major cities during the summer there is at least one broken bone per week on city owned playgrounds.
To explain from the other point of view here, we should consider the question Is it proper for an individual to do more than what society is authorized to do?
Say, for example, that your state (via the legislature) has set the maximum penalty for burglary of an un-occupied house at 20 years in prison. Not capital punishment. Not amputation of both legs. So the question for a court becomes “is it permissible for an individual (or an automated trap set by theml) to inflict a more severe punishment than the legal system could impose?” That’s where you get into the term “excessive force”.
Had it been an occupied dwelling, self-defense might enter into this, but only in terms of defending yourself or your family: shooting a burglar in the back as they are running away is NOT self-defense; the burglar was not threating you, but running away.
The laws of most states clearly say that using deadly force is only allowed when you think your own life is threatened. Not your property!
So while it’s annoying to read of burglars suing the homeowner they were robbing, think about the alternative: allowing individuals to take more deadly action to save their property than the police or society allow themselves to take. IMO, not a good idea.
In any case, most of these stories you read are just urban legends. Judges & juries in such civil cases are generally sensible, and they usually can set the percentage of fault appropriately. Many of the cases you read about are Insurance companies settling out of court – why should they fight, they can just raise premiums to make it up.
If you are interested in true stories of such lawsuits (and debunking of some of the urban legend ones) see the Stella Awards website & email list at www.stellaawards.com
I assume that’s a typo of “negligent”. 
As was said earlier on in this thread, landowners/tenants owe a common law duty of care to invitees on their property.
Just as you may establish a case of negligence against a shopping centre if your kid broke his or her arm in the playarea, so too may the parents of a child injured on your property.
The “content” and “standard” of that duty is a matter for the courts. If the case involved properly set-up and maintained play equipment and if you did a good job supervising the kids, it would be a more difficult case for the plaintiff to establish than if, say, the equipment was rusted and clearly dangerous.
Again, the distinction between someone being “allowed” to sue and a plaintiff being successful before a court should be kept in mind. Insurance-funded settlements out of court are also a distinct matter.
What if you put your valuables at the bottom of a piranha tank? Can someone sue you for losing a finger?
DCU
You wouldn’t be suggesting purjury, would you?
Aren’t the police allowed to use deadly force to stop crimes? And I have the feeling that if you tried breaking into a secure military installation, the soldiers would not be shy about using deadly force against a trespasser.
Anyway, I don’t agree with your premise. Unless you are proposing that we try to make the powers of the govenrment and individuals exactly equal, you are saying that the government should be allowed to do things which no person would be allowed to do. I think that since the government has more options avaible to it, it incurs a greater responsibility to take the least extreme measures. If a person is faced with the choice of allowing someone to rob them, or killing them, it is reasonable for the person to kill the robber. If the government were faced with that choice, it would also be justified, but the vast resources of the government means that that situation virtually never occurs.
However, there are many other issues to consider. For instance, there’s the guy that was alerted by his security system that there was an intruder in his house. He came home from work, shot the intruder, and then discovered that the intruder was his daughter playing hooky. Or what if the police set off the trap while executing a search warrant? The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is its fallibilty. That concern is nothing compared to a shotgun trained on the doorway.
PS anyone remember that Simpsons episode?
“Gee, I’d really like to kill Flanders”
“According to state law, you’re in the clear if he’s on your property”
“Hey Flanders, come over here”
“It doesn’t work if you invite him”
“What is it, neighborino?”
“Never mind”
“Okelydokely”
[QUOTE]
[quote}Aren’t the police allowed to use deadly force to stop crimes? [/quote]
No, only certain crimes (deadly ones like murder, etc. – specifically NOT property crimes, in most states) or when they feel their life is threatened. That’s why you see so many police car chases on TV nowadays – if they could use deadly force, they wouldn’t chase the criminal’s car trying to stop them, they would just drive up alongside and let loose with a shotgun.
I wasn’t proposing anything. Just trying to state what the laws are, and to give some explanation why.
NO! Not according to the laws of most states. That’s what I’m trying to explain. You could get yourself in real trouble thinking that. They are robbing you of property; that can be replaced. You are proposing to respond by taking their life, which can never be replaced. That’s not a reasonable or justifiable response, according to the laws of most states. (Now if the robber was threatening your life, that is different.)
P.S. I’m just explaining what I understand the laws to be, not trying to justify them. If you don’t like these laws, lobby your state legislature to change them. Some states (like Texas and Colorado, I think) have changed their laws to give a homeowner much more leeway to use deadly force to protect both their life and their property.
:smack: Well, at least I have an excuse. I broke my back Sunday, and I’m on major pain medication.
Your distinction between “someone being ‘allowed’ to sue and a plaintiff being successful before a court” is one that often gets lost in discussions such as this.
I’m not sure if this is appropriate to post in GQ rather than IMHO or elsewhere, but thought I’d add it in as an example of a true story:
My sister got sued (or certainly a claim for damages was made against her home insurance) by a postman who tripped on her property. He didn’t have any mail to deliver to her house, but was using her driveway as a short-cut between two other houses (after climbing the boundary fence) and tripped over a loose cover on an inspection chamber outside the house.
He wasn’t a burglar but was technically trespassing as he passed through the property, solely to avoid walking the extra 20m around the footpath.
I guess my sister owed a duty of care to him, as he was awarded about £4000 ($6500) for his trip.
California law says
So are saying that deadly force is never considered “reasonable”?
I’m not saying that cops can use any deadly force they want, only that they may use whatever minimum amount of force is necessary, even if that is deadly. Some of the things that cops do do to drivers: put down spike strips, ram them, erect road blocks. All of these can be considered deadly force.
Yes, I should have said something like “the premise which you imply” rather than “your premise”.
I never said that it’s legal, only that it’s justified. And property can’t really be replaced: if someone steals $100 from you, you may make another $100, but you still have $100 less than you would have had if the original $100 hadn’t been stolen. If you spent a day making that $100, that person is stealing a day of your life away from you.
I believe that Courts in most states have said that “reasonable force” is in relation to the offence – when attempting to arrest a murderer, deadly force is probably reasonable. But for a shoplifter? Probably not.
Also, past history/likely danger to the public enters into it too. If the suspect is a multiple murderer, or known to be armed & dangerous, using deadly force is more likely to be considered reasonable.
Not really; these are dangerous, and possibly could be deadly, but the intent is to stop the car. But shooting at the driver, intending to hit them – that is deadly force by definition.
I mean that when the thief is caught, they can be sentenced to pay restitution, so you get your $100 back. But if a life is taken, no one can get that back.
I want to know the answer to the pirahna question.
I heard of a case a while ago, someone broke into a garage, and accidentally locked himself in (one way locking door), whilst the homeowners were away for a week, and he had to subsist on dog food and beer.
He sued the insurance company for millions. Sometimes I really wonder who the real crooks of this world are…
Please, pretty, pretty please, in GQ don’t post things you heard without a citation – it truly is less than useless. Even the The-Law-Is-Mad touting The Stella Awards have your example down as bogus.