3 ms·

> the robber was not being chased by the police I didn't say that. I said he was escaping the police, which he surely was. > so it's "successful" only in the

by lutusp 13y ago

> the robber was not being chased by the police I didn't say that. I said he was escaping the police, which he surely was. > so it's "successful" only in the sense that the plaintiff received money ... That was true because of the threat of a court proceeding, in the context of a very litigous society. The thief wasn't a formal plaintiff, just an actual one. The money settlement was less than what would have resulted from a court proceeding, both parties knew this but accepted it for different reasons. > So, I'm not sure what lesson there is from that case. Can you elaborate? Certainly. A thief was injured while committing a crime. He sued the people he was robbing and won. It's hard to make it more dramatic than a bare recitation of the facts provides. > How does this 30 year old non-case affect business decisions now? * The fact that it was settled out of court doesn't mean there was no case. If that had been true, there wouldn't have been a settlement. * The litigous environment to which this case history refers has gotten worse, not better.

dalke 13y ago
The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the skylight. The plaintiff was unable to move. How is this "escaping the police" in any sense of the phrase? As to "He sued the people he was robbing and won", this is a blunt view of the world that should not be used as the sole basis for deciding culpability. Consider "I was going 10 mph over the 55 mph speed limit when the engine of my car caught fire. I sued the car company because of their faulty engine design. We were able to show that several other cars of the same model also caught fire at 65 mph, and the company knew about them, but the company hadn't done anything about it. I sued, but because I was breaking the law when it happened, I got nothing." In your view, is that appropriate? Consider "That night I shoplifted a pack of gum from the store. While still in the parking lot, I fell into an open manhole. The store had left it open for a week, without any signs or barriers, and the outside lights weren't turned on. I hit my head and was in a coma for 10 days. They refused to accept any liability, because it was part of my crime of stealing the gum." In your view, is that appropriate? In both hypotheticals, the lawbreaker "was injured while committing a crime", so I assume the answer to both questions is "yes." I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's life and health to $0. In addition, how much proof does there need to be to establish that someone has committed a crime, before the owner's immunity kicks in? Does the person need only to be accused of a crime, or does a full criminal conviction need to take place first? Do you really want there to be more criminal cases in order to reduce the number of (rare) civil cases? Or do you really want the property owners to make arbitrary claims, for the purpose of avoiding liability? "The litigous environment to which this case history refers has gotten worse, not better." I regard that is a statement of opinion not based in fact. For example, California Civil Code Section 847 ( http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html ), which was passed after the above lawsuit, says: > An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 of the Government Code, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, shall not be liable to any person for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b) by the injured or deceased person. Isn't that exactly what you want for this sort of case? If not, what should the law be?
- lutusp 13y ago
  > The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the skylight. The plaintiff was committing a crime. He needed to elude the police. When he fell, he was located where he was in order to avoid observation and arrest. > I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's life and health to $0. Now that you're making my arguments for me, I think we're done here.
  - dalke 13y ago
    What I ask for is primary information. Everything I've found has been secondary or tertiary. You write 'He needed to elude the police.' According to sources I read, he fell through the roof, his friends broke into the gym to help him, he was breathing but unconscious, his friends called the fire department, and the police arrived soon after. Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and the information I have found says that the police were not involved until after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about the case than I have been able to find. (Or do you mean that all criminals elude the police until they are caught? If so, then your use of "elude" and "escaping" is atypical and confusing, and has almost no real meaning.) "Now that you're making my arguments for me" I have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't understand your argument enough to make it or counter it. Your statements are vague enough that I can't make sense of them, and when I ask for clarification and details, you make an uninterpretable reply. I can only conclude that you don't care to understand and discuss the topic. Instead, you seem to repeat worn-down anecdotes about this case which have been repeated for 30+ years. Since then, California law was changed for the express reason to make it harder for criminals to make these sorts of legal claims. Were those changes not enough? And if not, why not? What would the law need to be in order for you to be happy?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and the information I have found says that the police were not involved until after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about the case than I have been able to find. You're conveniently overlooking the fact that he was on the roof, a pointless activity were it not for his desire to avoid detection. Does a person proactively make choices to avoid cancer even when no cancer is present? Yes or no?

by lutusp 13y ago

dalke 13y ago

The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the skylight. The plaintiff was unable to move. How is this "escaping the police" in any sense of the phrase? As to "He sued the people he was robbing and won", this is a blunt view of the world that should not be used as the sole basis for deciding culpability. Consider "I was going 10 mph over the 55 mph speed limit when the engine of my car caught fire. I sued the car company because of their faulty engine design. We were able to show that several other cars of the same model also caught fire at 65 mph, and the company knew about them, but the company hadn't done anything about it. I sued, but because I was breaking the law when it happened, I got nothing." In your view, is that appropriate? Consider "That night I shoplifted a pack of gum from the store. While still in the parking lot, I fell into an open manhole. The store had left it open for a week, without any signs or barriers, and the outside lights weren't turned on. I hit my head and was in a coma for 10 days. They refused to accept any liability, because it was part of my crime of stealing the gum." In your view, is that appropriate? In both hypotheticals, the lawbreaker "was injured while committing a crime", so I assume the answer to both questions is "yes." I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's life and health to $0. In addition, how much proof does there need to be to establish that someone has committed a crime, before the owner's immunity kicks in? Does the person need only to be accused of a crime, or does a full criminal conviction need to take place first? Do you really want there to be more criminal cases in order to reduce the number of (rare) civil cases? Or do you really want the property owners to make arbitrary claims, for the purpose of avoiding liability? "The litigous environment to which this case history refers has gotten worse, not better." I regard that is a statement of opinion not based in fact. For example, California Civil Code Section 847 ( http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html ), which was passed after the above lawsuit, says: > An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 of the Government Code, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, shall not be liable to any person for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b) by the injured or deceased person. Isn't that exactly what you want for this sort of case? If not, what should the law be?

lutusp 13y ago
> The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the skylight. The plaintiff was committing a crime. He needed to elude the police. When he fell, he was located where he was in order to avoid observation and arrest. > I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's life and health to $0. Now that you're making my arguments for me, I think we're done here.
- dalke 13y ago
  What I ask for is primary information. Everything I've found has been secondary or tertiary. You write 'He needed to elude the police.' According to sources I read, he fell through the roof, his friends broke into the gym to help him, he was breathing but unconscious, his friends called the fire department, and the police arrived soon after. Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and the information I have found says that the police were not involved until after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about the case than I have been able to find. (Or do you mean that all criminals elude the police until they are caught? If so, then your use of "elude" and "escaping" is atypical and confusing, and has almost no real meaning.) "Now that you're making my arguments for me" I have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't understand your argument enough to make it or counter it. Your statements are vague enough that I can't make sense of them, and when I ask for clarification and details, you make an uninterpretable reply. I can only conclude that you don't care to understand and discuss the topic. Instead, you seem to repeat worn-down anecdotes about this case which have been repeated for 30+ years. Since then, California law was changed for the express reason to make it harder for criminals to make these sorts of legal claims. Were those changes not enough? And if not, why not? What would the law need to be in order for you to be happy?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and the information I have found says that the police were not involved until after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about the case than I have been able to find. You're conveniently overlooking the fact that he was on the roof, a pointless activity were it not for his desire to avoid detection. Does a person proactively make choices to avoid cancer even when no cancer is present? Yes or no?