Sued for being nice

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Thing is, if your heart cant handle 2 girls at your door with cookies at 10.30 pm in the weekend then you bloody shouldnt be living alone.

Huh? The story clearly says she wasn't living alone and that she didn't know it was two girls with cookies:

But Young, home with her own 18-year-old daughter and her elderly mother, said she saw shadowy figures who banged and banged at her door. When she called out, "Who's there?" no one answered. The figures ran off.

Originally Posted by I am Idler

also, I gave you a negative rep for not going with the common sense and disagreeing with this.

Since you apparently didn't read the story I'm going to take that for what it's worth.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

america is a seriously ****ed up place

-jeez!!

-pretty much if you have legitimate claims of personal/physical/psychological/WTFever damages that are caused by anything under the sun, you can be sued for here in the US

-this particular case makes me wanna puke

-since its an article of a newspaper based in colorado explains a lot why this is - people in bum**** states like colorado, tend to act retarded like this a lot of times

-i will eat those girls cookies and their cookies at the same time, any time of day

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

Legally, I don't think that the girls would be held liable in the UK for what they did. Ok, so but for their actions, the old lady wouldn't have had an anxiety attack; however, it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that it would occur.

I've been doing prep for a causation seminar for tort all day, bastards.

do more prep.

Edit: or at least read Fairchild ffs.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

do more prep.

Edit: or at least read Fairchild ffs.

I read Fairchild.

The rule in it was that "In certain circumstances, it is enough that the defendants increased the risk of damage".

An asbestos-related case is totally different from two girls leaving cookies outside someone's door. For policy reasons as much as anything else, it's desirable to have employers bear the risk rather than employees (take Chester v Afshar as an example of this). Can you find an analogy for that in this case?

Yes, the girls would have borne, and did bear, the risk to them if something went wrong (e.g. a trigger-happy householder). But that wasn't what happened.


Next point:
A reasonable person could have seen that knocking on a door and running away could lead to fear in the householder. I guess you can use Hughes v Lord Advocate given that it only needs to be the kind of harm that's foreseeable, not the extent of it (i.e. an anxiety attack).

But that's not the Fairchild case. It's the Hughes case. I don't think that Fairchild is really usable here: if it was tried, I'd expect a similar exception as found in White v Paul Davidson & Taylor regarding this general area.


Feel totally free to come back at me on this, I can live with being told I'm wrong if there's some decent authority behind it.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

A reasonable person could have seen that knocking on a door and running away could lead to fear in the householder.

No, a reasonable person would foresee that knocking on a door prompts the householder to either open the door or look through the window and see who's at the door, not flip out.

But, next time kids come to ring my doorbell and run off (without leaving cookies, mind you), I'll be sure to have a spasm attack in which I destroy some obsolete yet valuable items in the house, so that they can pay for new stuff I want to buy.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

I read Fairchild.

The rule in it was that "In certain circumstances, it is enough that the defendants increased the risk of damage".

An asbestos-related case is totally different from two girls leaving cookies outside someone's door.

I wasn't commenting on this american example, i have no intention of doing so because;
a) it would make my joke less amusing to me
b) dace asked me to comment.

i was just critiscising your causation point. Fairchild has effective blown a hole in traditional causation. now i may not approve of this but essentially our post Fairchild world is one of teleoligical, if there is demonstrable damage then liability will flow.

I'm just surprised that the death of causation as a principle in tort liabilty hasn't filtered through to whichever university you are at.

[SYMM]

I like the word teleological, it's funny.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by SYMM

I like the word teleological

Creationist

[Gumbie]

But creationism has Dinosaurs as being made by the devil, that's cool.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

If you knock on my door at 10:30 pm you'd better have a damn good reason. And if it's something that could easily have waited until the next day then yeah, that's inconsiderate.

No cookies for you!

[Mek]

that woman is just a selfish arrogant bitch...i hope next time it is burglars and she is stabbed to death

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Mek

that woman is just a selfish arrogant bitch...i hope next time it is burglars and she is stabbed to death

I don't think this is fair. Perceptions are pretty important here and we have the benefit of hindsight. If the story had been presented as 'lady scared by ding-dong-ditchers, has panic attack, successfully sues for medical costs' we wouldn't react as strongly. For her it was a very serious event, so serious she ended up in the hospital.

The cookies, the baking, the running around and giving is all > $900 in my opinion. But let's face it, she sounds like white trash without health insurance...

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Banned

But let's face it, she sounds like white trash without health insurance...

i think ya hit the nail on the head there

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Even in the UK doctors have to have Good Samaritan insurance cover. Bascially if they stop to help someone on the street and they don't successfully treat them doctors could be sued. The lesson is, never help anyone. Anyone.

If they stop to help someone and through incompetance make matters alot worse or kill the individual then they are accountable. Extreme example but if i had a car crash i wouldn't want Dr Nick turning up and thinking that massaging my neck from side to side was a good idea. In almost all circumstances provided you were working with some sense nothing will happen (iirc if the doctor kills someone gross negligence has to be prooven for manslaughter to be judged), the 'person in need' has to be protected from people doing whatever they think is right. Anyone who stops to help is accountable in the same way. My mums a nurse and i remember reading some course notes about all this awhile back.

As to the news article i think going to someones house at 10.30pm is a bit silly, but the woman should just have accepted their initial offer to pay the bills.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I wasn't commenting on this american example, i have no intention of doing so because;
a) it would make my joke less amusing to me
b) dace asked me to comment.

i was just critiscising your causation point. Fairchild has effective blown a hole in traditional causation. now i may not approve of this but essentially our post Fairchild world is one of teleoligical, if there is demonstrable damage then liability will flow.

I'm just surprised that the death of causation as a principle in tort liabilty hasn't filtered through to whichever university you are at.

A quick interim post here:

I'm going to have a look for some case comments on Fairchild. Also, am reading through Barker v Saint Gobain Pipelines in the Court of Appeal (currently on appeal to the House of Lords)

Will post once I've done that. Cardiff Uni btw.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I think she should have gotten over it.

Yeah but as dante said she may have been genuinely scared and unable to afford the costs, accepting their offer to pay for the medical bills then getting over it would have been good.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think that many violent burglars knock on the door.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think that many violent burglars knock on the door.

There only needs to be one!

[JonnyBGood]

The best place to hide something is in plain sight!




Although frankly I think I might notice a random person putting my stuff into a bag with the word "swag" written on it while merrily whistling the tune to "I'm robbing your house today".

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Although frankly I think I might notice a random person putting my stuff into a bag with the word "swag" written on it while merrily whistling the tune to "I'm robbing your house today".

Not if last night's anything to go by.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think stealing from a student is the greatest value-call to make.

[Gumbie]

Lots of robbers knock, either posing as say the gasman, or simply bowling old people over and robbing the place as they try and get up.
It's why you should always ask for ID off anyone who claims to be a utility man.

[JonnyBGood]

I think if you're going for the "hay i'm a normal guy open up here I have important business to discuss with you" approach to breaking and entering you're probably missing the point by going to the house at half ten at night.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Banned

...she sounds like white trash without health insurance...

LOL!

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

A reasonable person could have seen that knocking on a door and running away could lead to fear in the householder. .

Yeah nobody stood on your doorstep is way more scary than somebody stood on your doorstep.

[Gumbie]

Nono, shadowy shapes running away leaving a box of cookies. Clearly it's al quaeda with an anthrax box of love.
She has every right to be terrified... after all she is a prime example of the great satan

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think stealing from a student is the greatest value-call to make.

actually it is, students tend to have lots of high end tech stuff thats quite easy to shift

i thought that everyone knew that?

[JonnyBGood]

You must know some right pretentious faggots who don't spend all their money on alcohol like us normal human beings.

[Ste]

the students in the house on the corner not only have a massive widescreen TV, but also Sky digital and a PS2. In plain view of the street (and my bedroom )
I'm sure similar luxuries are found throughout the house.
Rich bastards

Students tend to have a nice collection of dvd's and cd's. Usually a laptop or half decent pc. A dvd player and perhaps a PS2 can be found in most houses too. They could also leave a pretty decent mobile phone around as well.
The drawbacks are that there is always a possibility of someone being in, and during the holidays most of the nice stuff returns home with the student.

[JonnyBGood]

So many people waste their college years

[Ste]

I just realised I got neg-repped for starting this thread:
- Sued for being nice 7 Feb 2005 23:18 dumbass
thankyou to whoever you are, a nice anonymous neg rep

[JonnyBGood]

And for today jonny outs super (ie sub) as ste's anonymous abuser.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You must know some right pretentious faggots who don't spend all their money on alcohol like us normal human beings.

nah, i just read somewhere that more students should take out insurance as they are quite often targeted by criminals as being easy targets with lots of high value portable and saleable items

[Dante Hicks]

Most students I've known managed to spend heroic amounts of money on booze and still have loads of crappy consumer electronics. This is especially true when you've got shared households and stuff.

Having said that, how profitable can burgulary be these days (for those type of items?). When you've got the Wallmart-type effect of consumer goods being reduced to stupidly low prices (£30 for a DVD player etc) how much could a thief sell anything for (via a fence who will presumably take a good proportion of the value of the item)?

Perhaps Ebay is balancing things out by offering an opportunity to sell obviously stolen goods without any minding.

[roadrunner_0]

lol, its things like the CD and DVD collections that i would worry about now

[Boogster]

I must admit, I thought it was a little strange that they were just baking little treats for the neighbours. I expected various taunts on the forums, but it seems our general hatred of all things American got the better of our wit this time.

[Gumbie]

Why would we taunt? It was genuinly nice, not contrived nice.

[Ninja_spammer]

Remember if you say that something is wrong then you are voicing concern and thats ok, you should do this to ensure a better world.


If however you say that something is wrong and it is American then you are expressing hate and thats wrong and you should just sit down and shut up you anti-american biggot.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

If however you say that something is wrong and it is American then you are expressing hate and thats wrong and you should just sit down and shut up you anti-american biggot.

AMERICANS ALWAYS MISSPELL BIGOT

[Snurx]

How the hell can you be scared if somebody knocks on your door?*
This area has to be nice, if not, the father would probably not let the kids run around giving away cookies. And even if it's not, the chance of it being a criminal AND that the criminal wants to harm you in any way, has to be so little as it's almost noexistant.
The old lady should be given prozac and valium. Not a court-case win!

*I am. But I have reasons, the man is after me!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Snurx

How the hell can you be scared if somebody knocks on your door?

Joking aside, one of the serious side effects of increasing alienation (and dissolution of communities etc) is that people are afraid of everyone else in almost every context.

[roadrunner_0]

to be honest, i would have thought that if that was a community where people didn't know each other, i don't think that they would have been allowed to cook cookies for their neighbours

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

to be honest, i would have thought that if that was a community where people didn't know each other, i don't think that they would have been allowed to cook cookies for their neighbours

Perhaps. There are often individuals even in close knit communities who are anti-social (and are often targeted for this). On one of the estates we manage there is quite a good community spirit (of sorts) but there is one woman who is slightly deranged. She phones up and asks up to up statues of Elvis Presley and is obsessed by the royal family.

The local kids stand outside her window and shout abuse about the monarchy to make her cry.

(nothing to do with the matter at hand, but it always amused me when she phones up)