ok as i was talkin to my friend about laws in US, he told me some cases that happened over there
i mean come on
i mean come on
Are u fuckin serious???
- Thread starter amon666
- Start date
I'm not sure if the 2nd one is true but i now the 3rd one is true and I'm pretty sure the 4th one is also true but I'm not sure if the fat guy succesfully sued them. Its pretty retarted but people can sue for pretty much any thing in the U.S.
Bill S.
Sanity is too overrated
To the first one: yup, it's true. It's called not maintaining a safe following distance. That's why they have that whole "3 second rule" thing. Not sure why you would say "come on" to that, given that drivers have the legal obligation to be in control of their vehicles at all times, so it makes perfect sense.
gnoff
Member
This one is true for Sweden also and I don't really see what's the problem with it?
If you're so close behind that you can't actually stop your car because the one in front breaks, you're too close!
For no reason? How do you know?
The person might have seen someone or something on the road you haven't.
OK, so this is one of the most talked about points of "silly American law suits" I've heard.
Though just recently I was told it might not be all that silly.
Apparently they had been warned several times, also the temperature of the coffee served was very hot, the cause of the previous warnings. McDonalds had refused to do anything about these warnings.
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
not sure if the next one holds true to all facts, but if it does, here you go:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
gnoff
Member
Reminds me of something else.
1)
A friend of mine is working as an air traffic controller in Dubai.
This one day he told a pilot in the air to do something to avoid getting too close to another plane.
The pilot didn't do it, also he didn't report back that he was not going to do as commanded.
The result was a "near" mid-air collision and of course a huge investigation.
What happens?
My friend gets punished becuase the pilot did not do what my friend told him to.
Now I just don't see how that can be?
2)
I've heard stories that in Saudi Arabia, you should not stay and try to help out when you see a car accident.
Why?
Because if the person that you are tryig to help dies, you're in some messed up way responsible for it.
Can that really be true?
Not only the US has strange laws my friend
Number one applies in Australia. It's a strict liability offence - you must maintain a safe and reasonable distance whilst travelling behind another vehicle; if not, and you hit them, then you are liable, no questions asked. Unless you can successfully argue that the causal chain was broken by a intervening act - this is called the novus actus interveniens (Latin maxim).
Number two also applies in Australia. It comes under civil law namely the tort of negligence/duty of care. This deals with the failure to exercise reasonable care to your neighbour/reasonable foreseeability/proximity/class of persons that may be caused harm by my negligent act or omission etc (Donoughe v Stevenson is the landmark decision re 'duty of care'). Crazy i know, but it is of no consequence if the plaintiff (robber) was injured during the course of a criminal act (in which he would then be the defendant if charged by the police or DPP (director of public prosecutions).
Number three: the plaintiff successfully argued that McDonald's failed to take reasonable care to advise it's customers that the contents in the cup of coffee may be hot and/or cause physical injury if drunk without giving the contents enough time to cool down. ever since, McDonald's as put a disclaimer on their cups of coffee/tea to advise its customers that contents in cup may be hot and care must be taken when drinking them (acts as a waiver to prevent being sued again - the courts will dismiss any other claims because McDonald's has now taken reasonable steps to ensure its customers are informed)
Number four: It would be difficult for that to get up here in Australia. We can follow precedents set in the United States (we are a common law jurisdiction like them) but the High Court tends to take a more common sense approach rather than the 'but/for' approach to issues such as the one mentioned. And besides, the US is what i like to call 'the litigation state' - you can be and will successfully sued for just about anything! Australia is starting to get like this but the Courts are taken a more conservative approach to be a stop to it.
sorry about the nerdy response, i'm a law student afterall. any questions, just ask
Number two also applies in Australia. It comes under civil law namely the tort of negligence/duty of care. This deals with the failure to exercise reasonable care to your neighbour/reasonable foreseeability/proximity/class of persons that may be caused harm by my negligent act or omission etc (Donoughe v Stevenson is the landmark decision re 'duty of care'). Crazy i know, but it is of no consequence if the plaintiff (robber) was injured during the course of a criminal act (in which he would then be the defendant if charged by the police or DPP (director of public prosecutions).
Number three: the plaintiff successfully argued that McDonald's failed to take reasonable care to advise it's customers that the contents in the cup of coffee may be hot and/or cause physical injury if drunk without giving the contents enough time to cool down. ever since, McDonald's as put a disclaimer on their cups of coffee/tea to advise its customers that contents in cup may be hot and care must be taken when drinking them (acts as a waiver to prevent being sued again - the courts will dismiss any other claims because McDonald's has now taken reasonable steps to ensure its customers are informed)
Number four: It would be difficult for that to get up here in Australia. We can follow precedents set in the United States (we are a common law jurisdiction like them) but the High Court tends to take a more common sense approach rather than the 'but/for' approach to issues such as the one mentioned. And besides, the US is what i like to call 'the litigation state' - you can be and will successfully sued for just about anything! Australia is starting to get like this but the Courts are taken a more conservative approach to be a stop to it.
sorry about the nerdy response, i'm a law student afterall. any questions, just ask
SilentRealm
Member
gaz mr law man extraordinare! i don't get though with the robbing one, how does it apply if they're on the premises uninvited, or is there a way to protect yourself from that such as a sign 'trespassers will be prosecuted' or whatever.. if there isn't then what is the use of such signs?
'trespassers will be prosecuted' falls under criminal law (the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt - a much higher standard than the civil standard).
the robber successfully suing the home-owner falls under civil law. the burden of proof is different in civil cases - it's on the balance of probabilities. all he has to prove is that it is more probable than not that the home-owners negligent act or omission (failure to keep the ladder in proper working order) was the cause of his injury.
the defendant (home-owner) would then argue that the plaintiff (robber) contributed to the act that caused the injury - this is called contributory negligence. in making an assessment for damages, the court will take this into consideration and apportion blame/damages accordingly - ie make a determination that the robber was, for example 70% responsible and the home-owner was 30% responsible for the injury/harm caused. it doesn't matter if he was uninvited, the robber would fall under a class or person or persons which the home-owner owes a duty of care to.
the home-owner can also sue the robber in tort under 'trespass' - that he trespassed onto his property etc etc. that's another story though lol
if that doesn't make sense, i'll try and explain it on friday night...before i get hammered! lol!
Bates
Swamp Yankee
Babydollcybergoth
Member
- Oct 8, 2002
- 397
- 0
- 16
Number 1 is true in almost anywhere in the world. You rear end someone, it's your fault. Unless the guy in front was driving backwards on the road...
Beave
a.k.a. "that lil' angel"
Litigation has certainly been taken to some pretty surreal lengths in the U.S. We've got all sorts of "ambulance chasing" scumbag lawyers lurking in the shadows just waiting to pounce on and exploit the most ridiculous of legal technicalities.
I'm all for tort reform to get rid of cases in which a burglar has grounds to sue his victim (a true fucking miscarriage of justice), but in a society like the U.S., in which there is essentially no social safety net, litigation is a vital means to resolve grievances and prevent the kind of blood feuds and shootouts that were common in the wild west.
I'm all for tort reform to get rid of cases in which a burglar has grounds to sue his victim (a true fucking miscarriage of justice), but in a society like the U.S., in which there is essentially no social safety net, litigation is a vital means to resolve grievances and prevent the kind of blood feuds and shootouts that were common in the wild west.
SilentRealm
Member
@ Gaz - nah it's cool i get what you're saying.. i still don't agree with the owing responsibility for someone uninvited onto your premises though, but well..
Tomasz
outdoor type
"almost" being the keyword, I got rear ended by some drugged up bitch with 25 moving violations and yet got ticket for it and my insurance company sued by ambulance chasing scumbag as well, go figure, life's a bitch sometimes, the whole fuckin' system failed,
Kind of reminds me of how I got a ticket for failure to yield right of way out of my driveway when some bastard was driving well over the speed limit. Never mind I had a huge snowbank in my way and was in the hospital getting a CAT scan, the idiot come after ME for his "neck injury". The dude couldn't remember his own damn phone number and had no insurance papers and was driving without a license.
Not to mention years ago my dad was rear ended by some 18 year old girl while he was on a motor cycle, he spent 3 days in the hospital in ICU, she walked without the cops even testing her for drugs and alcohol and she got away with paying us for it by claiming Bankruptcy or some crap.
Not to mention years ago my dad was rear ended by some 18 year old girl while he was on a motor cycle, he spent 3 days in the hospital in ICU, she walked without the cops even testing her for drugs and alcohol and she got away with paying us for it by claiming Bankruptcy or some crap.
Bates
Swamp Yankee
In Florida? They've got some fucked up laws down South, my dad's truck got clipped when he was stopped down there, and was somehow found at fault.
naw dude, the motorcycle thing was in wisconsin and the me thing was in Connecticut, I have heard of some crazy laws in Florida though
