It’s a pity the Denver Post article didn’t provide an address to mail a contribution to Ms. Ostergaard and Ms. Zellitti.
It’s might nice of burglars in that neighborhood to ring the doorbell before barging in and stealing stuff.
All I can say is… :smack: :wally
If all the facts as reported are correct (never something one can assume), then this is a bad decision. Special vulnerabilities of a “victim” are not relevant when determining whether a tort has occured for which the alleged tortfeasor is liable. Now, once something is understood to be a tort, the tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds him, even if special vulnerabilities of the victim such as phobias make the injury much more costly than it would ordinarily have been, but that’s a separate question.
–Cliffy
[Monty Python]
“Of course ma’am, have you considered all the advantages of owning a really fine set of encyclopedias?”
[/Monty Python]
Yeah, trying to do a good deed will get you sued.
Fuck that bitch. Fuck her good and long and hard in the asshole without lube by someone who had just masturbated three times in a row beforehand so it takes a good, long time.
wtf?
Meself, I like the end quote from the woman–“I hope those girls have learned a lesson.”
And what would that be, to the tune of $900 in YOUR pocket, sweetie? To not do neighborly things? To not be nice? To sue someone when they attempt an act of kindness?
The article states that the girls did not go to darkened homes–her light was on. Frankly, when my lights are on, I am awake. And what is up with this woman’s 18 y/o daughter? Why couldn’t SHE answer the damn door?
What has happened to us as people?
Perhaps that woman is so stupid she forgot what happened the last time they knocked on her door. “I’m suing you because you knocked on my door when I didn’t want to you to, and then you stopped knocking on my door.” Sheesh!
ITA. I wish that I could send some $$ to the girls and that I lived close enough to ring and run this woman (and I’m a 42 y/o mother!).
I wish I knew what tort they were found to have been liable for. If they’re being charged with trespass (an intentional tort), then, yes, special vulnerabilities are relevant to damages because it’s an intentional tort. But as I see it they didn’t trespass. Which leaves negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Negligence won’t get special vulnerabilities, and IIED would require proof of intent to cause distress.
I think a judge somewhere forgot to read his Restatements.
Are you implying that something has happened to us? To me? Are you saying I’ve changed? Damn you! punches wall Ow! Now I thunk i’vebrokenn myfingers11
you’ll here frommy lawyyer!
Jesus H Christ on a Triscuit, wouldn’t that have meant knocking on the fucking door? She’d have sued their asses for trying to apologize!
From the article (bolding mine):
My guess is that this bitch had it coming to her, knew it, and that is what set off the panic attack. I mean, we just know her third hand and we all want to egg her house. Pity the people who actually have to live next to her.
Every so often, you come across gems of prose. Leaving all questions of the content aside, isn’t that just a delightful sentence?
My thoughts, too. You know it’s only a matter of time before someone at Fark tracks down her telephone number, and she starts getting a lot worse than cookies at 10 pm.
Daniel
I would contibute to a fund to pay back the $900, and I’d contribute more to a legal fund to finance an appeal of this decision.
You commit (fease?) a tort against the victim you have, not the victim you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Looks like there’s a Durango DopeFest in the making here. Lotsa volunteers already.
Like jars of dog shit? Yes, there are people who sell such things over the internet. No, I don’t know the url.
You do know that hurts not only the fuckee.