Badmovies.org Forum

The guys were getting the cones from their truck to block the area.  I hope the judge throws this out.

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/6732

Here's another article about a proposed Illinois law to ban texting while crossing the street


http://abajournal.com/news/proposed_illinois_bill_would_ban_street_crossers_from_text_messaging/

How about, local council sue teen for ruining their sewer...

It should get thrown out but probably wont.  Why is every little thing a payday? Its disgusting how litigious we are. She should have been watching were she was going, personal responsibility people..  :lookingup:   And the parents should be teaching their daughter to be aware of her surroundings instead of teaching her that her mistakes are the fault of others and looking to cash in on a non existent injury.

I know, im ranting but this stuff makes me so angry not just because it clogs up the courts but because we are raising a nation of I want it now,I want it for free and im not going to apologize for it you are, children..

From the article: "...sewer line workers are supposed to cut off pedestrian access to work sites or at least mark them with warning signs," which implies that they didn't do that in this case.  If that's true, the city was indeed negligent and it won't be thrown out of court.  The teenager was also negligent for not looking where he/she was going, which will cut down on his/her the recovery.  In most states they assign a percentage: for example. plaintiff was 50% negligent so they get 50% of what they would if the city were 100% at fault.  Truth is, this is overwhelmingly likely to be settled out of court, with the city probably paying any medical expenses and maybe a little bit more. 

I don't like suits like this either, but if it's true the city didn't put up any warnings, then the suit is not frivolous under current law.

This story just made my year.

In many other countries, they don't put up these warnings, and there is no sue the government. People watch out for their own asses.

"Can you hear me nooooooooooooooooooooowww?!?!"

I can't even comprehend the mindset where a person could step into an open manhole and blame someone other than themselves for it.  And I have no wish to ponder it.

Maybe I should go and walk into the side of this idiot's house and then sue him for not putting up a warning sign.

Name 3. The UK they always blocks off any road works, sewer work.... Its basic health and safety.


Basically the cones should have been placed before the man hole cover was removed. Its basically 100% the cities fault. You can not blame someone for not looking where they are going if normally it would be blocked off with warning signs. Of course it will be sorted out of court and this is one of the rare times I will agree with the victim trying to claim money, considering your healthcare is not free.

HAHAHAHAHA! I wish I coulda seen it! Whatta mo-mo!   :bouncegiggle:
If they wanna sue-they should sue the doctors that delivered the idiot-mebbe they used forceps on his head.

Germany and Belgium I know for sure, and I'm sure there are others, especially in smaller countries where they actually expect people to take responsibility for themselves.


Translation: "I didn't look out for myself because usually, because I demand someone else does that for me."

And you are wrong, I can. .

Hmm ok then I will start digging pits with spikes in, then if anyone dies it will be all their fault. Nice logic...

The person could be doing something else, destracted by nearby events... all sorts of things can destract you from the ground.

I am pretty sure that every country which has any basic health or safety will put up and block off holes in the road which provide risk to the public as well as to workers. Its basic common sense. Those workmen should have correctly done their job. This case will end up either successful or sorted out of court. The city does not have a leg to stand on.

No matter how much you try to assign blame, if the workmen violated health and safety, then the city is in the wrong. With any luck this case will force them to tightern up on health and safety (hopefully).

As much as I revere the idea of personal responsibility, I think both Frogger and Ghouk are wrong.  The city is not 100% at fault, and the teenager is not 100% at fault.

First off, we don't know all the facts here.  But, taking a hypothetical situation where the city failed to warn citizens of an open manhole or rope it off, and a person who wasn't paying adequate attention to his surroundings fell into the manhole, both parties are partially at fault.  The city is screwed, because they were probably required by ordinance (and certainly by their own internal procedures) to put up adequate warnings to protect the public.  They have a standard of care, they violated their own standard, and an injury resulted.

In these sorts of negligence cases, comparative negligence usually applies.  The plaintiff is assigned some percentage of the blame due to their own negligence, and their recovery is reduced by that percentage. 

The city will probably offer to pay for the medical bills to avoid a lawsuit with the possibility of punitive damages.  Hopefully, the teen's family will accept the deal.  That would be a reasonable outcome in my view.

Nice straw-man argument. . .


Really? Might want to research that.


But watching where you're going apparently isn't. As you say, "Nice Logic..."


You say assign blame, I say ask people to take responsibility for their own actions.


Translation: Hopefully after this, people can continue to go about their own business without taking any personal responsibility, and get paid when someone else doesn't watch out for them as if they were a pre-schooler.

And Rev, you missed my point. I never said the City wouldn't have to pay. My point was that the fact that there's an ordinance shows how little people take any sort of personal responsibility. But quite frankly, as personal responsibility goes up, the need for lawyers goes down.

*sigh*

The kids are arguing again.

 :thumbup: