James Heard, I wanted to touch on a couple points in your post, but first let me say whether I agree with you or not on particular points, you did lay it out in a reasonable and intelligent manner.
James Heard said:
Not without invalidating an awful lot of case law for negligent manufacturers and a bunch of other things and opening a huge can of worms for appeals cases. This is basically an issue of unintended consequences that lead to harm.
While being right at the surface, I would disagree that this particular incident applies. The basis for "unintended consequences" providing a real avenue for legal action most of the time directly involves negligence. That is, of course, hard to delineate, and is partially why there have been such things as "good samaritan laws", etc.
James Heard said:
She obviously proved harm, in the amount of the hospital visit (and whether or not you think that she was really harmed), and she was able to prove that there was cause (10:30 at night, someone prowling your property leaving packages and not identifying themselves clearly) for that harm.
Well, IMO, just because you have a bill for something does not prove harm, so to me it's not obvious that she was harmed. The problem in this case is that to get the "big picture" we would have to have access to the records of her treatment at the hospital, and possibly other medical records that might be relevant, but she has a right for those to remain private. I dont know if it came up in court or not, because I've heard nothing about the results of her next-morning treatment (or her medical history), but that is what would lend itself towards proof, not the fact that she went to the hospital. People go to hospitals and doctors all the time for no good reason or to try and "create" evidence for some kind of claim against someone.
So lets clarify this from my perspective... just because she went to the hospital and racked up a bill DOES NOT mean that she suffered costs/damages as a result of the girls actions. It means that she went to the hospital and racked up a bill, and nothing more, without some kind of further medical proof. The fact that she has a bill is not proof of anything other than she incurred an expense for herself.
James Heard said:
That's an awful lot more cause and an awful lot less harm than you'll see in a lot of negligence torts.
This is true, but that in no way means that it is right, or it is as it should be.
James Heard said:
No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do. This is the same law applied as far as I can tell. If you drop an exception into the common law for sweet young teenage girls then eventually you'll have it as the defense used for the sweet teenage girl serial cookie poisoners - "We're cute and young, we didn't know that using radioactive flour would be a problem."
It's never obvious that the companies that you mention are well meaning, but there is one thing that is always obvious... they mean to *make money* by producing a product, which is completely seperate from making a good or safe product. The reason for investigations and lawsuits is to prove whether the company is liable because they let their number one reason for existence ("making money") overcome or supplant other reasons for existence ("providing a safe and useful product") by negligence or purposeful deed. The law is there to ensure that whatever company took "reasonable" steps to produce said product safely to the best of their knowledge or ability, even if it did inadvertantly hurt someone. Of course, lawsuits don't always work out that way, but that is the intention.
In this case, I just hope there is some medical proof that there was a reason that the woman actually required treatment that we just arent hearing, because otherwise I would have to agree with Barsoomcore. The fact that she went to the hospital in no way proves that she deserved to be compensated, and it's obvious from the social outcry that the vast majority of people seem to agree. Heck, if something upsets me that much, I can usually handle it with a couple Maker's and Ginger Ale, and that's a heck of a lot cheaper than a trip to the hospital. Unfortunately, without that extra information it's not something that I, or any of us, can truly make a sound judgement on.
The second thing that I havent heard anything about is whether the judge decided that the woman was able to prove an expectation of actual harm because of the nature of the locale based on any kind of historical or even anecdotal evidence. Apparently this was somehow "proved" by her lawyer, but we don't know how. To argue whether she had expectation of harm sufficient enough to cause her that kind of distress based on where *we* live is doing so without weighing all the facts. By my standards, she's a loon, but it may just be that crazy where she lives. However, the fact that all of the other people the girls delivered cookies to not only ate them comfortably, but supplied written evidence of their joy at receiving them in the form of thank you notes leads me to believe that the woman is a crackpot, and should have led the judge to also.
James Heard said:
That's extreme, but it's true. I'm also betting that the girls didn't bring a serious legal defense because it was pretty stupid on the face of things, while the woman brought an ambulance chaser with an ax to grind because she was seeking a cash cow.
I think you just hit the nail on the head there brother.
James Heard said:
She's made the national newspapers. That opens people up to all sorts of lessening of the restrictions on invasion of privacy and raising the threshold for harrassment. It would be harrassment for photographers to wait outside your house as a nobody, but once you're in the news you're suddenly a free speech issue. I'm not saying I universally agree with the concept, but I'm willing to suggest that using that concept to one's advantage in a case like this isn't completely unethical.
See, to me this attitude is the root of the problem with lawyers. Using a person's sudden newsworthiness to violate their personal privacy in order cause them pain and/or harm is unethical. Always. Period. Regardless of the imagined loophole.
That is not to say that you should not ever resort to those means, but people cannot and should not claim clear conscience and righteousness just because the ends justified the means. If a twice-convicted child molestor moved into my neighborhood would I violate his privacy within the confines of accepted practice/law to harass him by warning others of his past deeds in order to provide me, as a parent, a better feeling of safety for my kids? You are damn right I would. Every time, and twice on Sundays. But that does not make it right, or make me feel good about doing it. IMO, as long as people have the character to look at their actions in that way, they will better be able to judge when they should or should not go against their normal principles. Of course in America we'd probably have a lot less Marine generals speaking publicly about how much fun it is to kill people, and most likely have just a bit better relationship with the rest of the world, but that is merely conjecture on my part
.
I personally feel that lawyers often use this kind of excuse to justify doing things they damn well know at some level it was wrong to do.
"See, she may have won in court, but she will suffer more because of it than if she had never went to court, so justice is done". What you dont hear is the two lawyers walking off after that statement, laughing at all of us, and saying to each other "...and WE got paid for it!". *They* are the only winners here. The lawyers get paid, and both parties get screwed, but on the surface the good guys won? I don't buy it.
James Heard said:
But the only reason you think they're incompetent is because they applied the law and the material facts as they were presented them. So what, you remove the judge because he upheld the law and judged according to the law and the facts of the case? Now who's being rude? "You should do your job, by violating the ethical standards of your profession because when you perform your duties as you're trained to and the law requires you to people don't like it." That's the reason the higher courts aren't elected offices, to protect them from people who want to make the judiciary into a popularity contest.
Again, the root of the problem in our system is that the judge has to rely on the lawyers to present all of the "material facts", and often actual facts get twisted, misconstrued, ignored, or blatantly created/destroyed with "legitimately" legal reasons to benefit one party or the other *with the judge's full knowledge*. Is there a better way? I'm not sure, because the system that works like this is intended (and most often does) protect people not only from each other but an unfair government.
In this situation, if the judge previewed the womans medical record from the next morning and her medical history plus was provided reasonable evidence of expectation of harm strong enough to cause this kind of upset, and still made his decision, then to me he is in the clear.
If he did not, then he is in fact incompetant IMO, because he went against the ethical standards and training he has been given by ignoring the key facts in the matter, which unfortunately are unknown to those of us arguing this matter right now.
Hey, how about this, let's change the rules. If you bring civil suit against someone and lose, and it is determined that it was a "frivolous" lawsuit, how about *nobody* gets paid except the defendant. No lawyers *or* judges get paid for that lost time, and the defendant gets paid only for the time lost from his work as a percentage of his last tax return results. Of course, you then have to define frivolous...
