Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Heard" data-source="post: 2021036" data-attributes="member: 7280">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. 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. That's an awful lot more cause and an awful lot less harm than you'll see in a lot of negligence torts.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."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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification