I've seen some comments and questions here recently expressing various amounts of tolerance in how far one is allowed to go to defend oneself from criminals,
Suppose you were on the jury for the following court cases. In each, should the defendant pay damages and/or serve a sentence, or is the case frivolous?
•A blind man walks into a manhole and severely injures himself, and is suing the construction company that left the manhole open. There were clearly visible signs posted warning people about the hazard, but of course they were of no use to the blind man.
•A group of teenagers climb onto the roof of a warehouse and one falls and injures herself. The warehouse was mostly surrounded by a fence and signs were posted warning trespassers, but the fence was not up to code for unattended buildings, and the teenagers would have been unable to make it onto the roof if the building would have been properly fenced. The parents are now suing the company owning the warehouse for negligence.
•A man has recently bought a second house which he's renovating and preparing to rent out, but which is currently unattended most of the time, and he's had some trouble in the past with burglaries. Frustrated, he has set up warnings all around the premises saying that trespassers will be shot, and he has actually set up a trigger device on the front door rigged to a pistol, which fires a round at about upper leg level at the front door if it's opened without being disarmed. A burglar breaks into the front door, and is shot in the leg, permanently paralyzing it. The burglar is now suing the landowner for medical expenses.
•A man is walking through a dangerous part of town in which he had been mugged several times before, including one time in which his wife was shot and killed by a mugger. When his wife was killed, he started carrying a gun. Walking through an alley, all of a sudden a door opens behind him and he whirls around to find a man looking at him, and sees a pistol in his hand. He reacts instinctively and shoots the man, instantly killing him. Another man comes out and is horrified, and it turns out that it was just a realistic-looking squirt gun, and that these were just two friends leaving their apartment to go to a party. The first man is now on trial for criminal manslaughter.
Note: When I say 'short,' clearly I mean 'not short.'
Vlad
All thrown out, except the last one.
The pistol was in his hand, but you did not say pointed at the man, or being drawn. The man who came through the door was not doing anything threatening.
kiki
Hahaha, dang dude.
1) Blind dude - has a case. He's blind, he couldn't avoid it.
2) Stupid teen - no case. They chose to willingly go into an abandoned building. They got hurt because of their own dumbassness.
3) Crazy redneck - no case. I feel for the man, but come on, who actually shoots trespassers. Instead of a gun, he should have invested in some high end video recording. He took it too far in my opinion.
4) Trigger happy dude - unsure. Obviously he took proper training courses if he was licensed to carry a firearm and the idiot with the squirtgun was being a dumbass for pointing a "gun" at someone. Honestly, if this were me in this situation and it were dark and I couldn't see, I'd probably do the same thing.
That's my short (kinda) answer :P
green6es
1. Shouldn't the manhole be roped off? 2. Teenagers should have stayed off roof. No award given. 3. No award given. 4. Don't carry a gun, if you're too trigger happy.
Blah
The blind man has a case since they are required to rope or tape off the area around the open cover.
The teenagers are at fault for climbing the roof. This wasn't negligence on the part of the owners.
The same situation here, the premise declares them to be a burglar. They deserve what they get. If it had been someone who was not, I would be in favor of them getting paid for medical expenses and sending the owner to jail.
The man is guilty of manslaughter since he had the gun but was not sure first. With power comes responsibility.
CloudCity[CC]
Case 1: Manholes remaining open should be fenced off with construction fencing and barrels should be placed as well as applicable signage. The construction company should have to pay due to negligence.
Case 2: The teens are trespassing. They should not be compensated. While the company could be fined by the municipal government for negligence in maintaining the fence, that does not excuse trespassing and so the parents should not be entitled to compensation.
Case 3: The person is responsible for the medical expenses and should be charged for attempted murder. If he was concerned about security, install a security system. Since there are no residents, this is not a case of self defense where someone was in danger and as such violence is unwarranted. (If you lived there, and shot an intruder, you could argue self defense).
Case 4: This depends on where you live (is it legal to carry a firearm?); Where it is legal to carry firearms, I would argue for self defense; where it is illegal to carry firearms, I'd say it was manslaughter.
Ryan
In all of them the defendants are liable.
#1 Just because there are signs doesn't mean they have done everything to prevent an injury. The manhole should have been covered if work wasn't occuring. If work was occuring, the workers should have warned him.
#2 The fences weren't up to code. That is a safety hazard. It is private property and the owners are liable.
#3 This is similar to a case from Iowa. The owner is liable.
http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/torts/katkovbriney.html
I remember this from a law class I took.
#4 The man was careless with a gun. This is similar to #3. You can't use deadly force unless your life is in danger. Just because somebody has something that looks like a gun doesn't mean you are automatically in danger.
Orignal From: A short survey of court cases?
Post a Comment