Beware the slide pool at the Sonoran Sky!You may end up in a 3rd world clinic!!
- Thread starter clozzzer
- Start date
jerry
Guest
No you seem a bit off you game..maybe cut back on the Fox News a bit...not all at once but slowly taper down
jerry
Guest
Beatnik
rockyptjoe
Guest
I knew you couldn't hold out without bringing up either Rush, Fox News or a racist label!!! How many posts in a row did you make without doing it???? 4??? 5???
Roberto
Guest
Commie, Pinko Ratfink.
Kenny
Guest
Well I had you redirected for awhile, but then you had to add a little remark to Jerry on my time, and I'm not one bit happy about that.
I'm starting to worry about you Joe, you seem to be a little out of sorts. Maybe a little walk in the park would do you some good, but probably not.:mrgreen:
Oh, what's with all this ass stuff Joe? You're not coming out of the closet too, are ya?:-o
az-dan
Guest
First I would not just let my kids or grandkids be lead by someone I didn't have confidence in and if they were injured it would be tragic but it would be my responsibility. My daughter at 8 years old was riding her 3 wheel atc in the woods and I kept telling her to slow down, she ended up hitting a tree and broke her arm. She even at 8 yeras old she was held responsile due to her own actions and as her father I accepted full responsibility and never once did it cross my mind that I should sue the atv manufacture, the forest service for not cutting down the trees or for them not posting warning signs that you can be hurt by running into the trees. But I was taught early in life to accept responsibility for my actions and my dumbass decisions which I can say have been many.
playaperro
El Pirata
You got to start them young Eduardo!
jerry
Guest
. My neighbors daughter was killed when an atv flipped backwards and the over served brother-in-law landed on top of her...poof and she was gone. the hospital bills came to 200k for the attempt to save her and over a million for his long term care. They sued the bar,the drunk brother and the Atv manufacturer.This sucessfully kept themselves from losing everything. the people that made bad choices...The bar serving a known drunk, the drunk taking a 13 year old on an Atv while drunk ,The Atv manufacturer Putting out a Atv they knew had the problems with flipping far above industry norms all paid for there mistakes. She was a great kid and her death played a part in the upgrading of safety standards/warnings for atv's industry wide and caused the bar to change it's serving policy. who knows how many lives that saved.
Tedram
Tedram
Jerry,
I am sorry to hear about your neighbors daughter. I cannot begin to understand the loss that they felt when they lost thier daughter. However there is only one person responsibe for her death. THE SON-IN-LAW. He should have been charged with manslaughter. In the heat of a trail and with a dead child I can see why the jury awarded damages against the bar and ATV manufacturer (follow the money) but I believe that is flawed logic. Where does it end? Sue the spoon maker because I got fat and had a heart attack.....etc. etc. etc.
I am sorry to hear about your neighbors daughter. I cannot begin to understand the loss that they felt when they lost thier daughter. However there is only one person responsibe for her death. THE SON-IN-LAW. He should have been charged with manslaughter. In the heat of a trail and with a dead child I can see why the jury awarded damages against the bar and ATV manufacturer (follow the money) but I believe that is flawed logic. Where does it end? Sue the spoon maker because I got fat and had a heart attack.....etc. etc. etc.
az-dan
Guest
Sad story but this is how I see it. An innocent 13 year old was killed by an irresponsible adult. The adult chose to drink, the bar never forced him. He chose to get on a atv with probably no helmet or safety gear, he choose to ride double even though they are not designed for 2 and he chose to ride beyond his ability, the atvs have never flipped over on their own. Ok who pays the price of his stupidly besides the family, we all do. The bar pays more for insurance and has to charge (us) more to stay in business, the insurance company raises rates to all bars and again we all pay more for drinks, the atv manufacture has to redesign, retool and put warnings all over the atv and weall pay more for them. The atv manufactures are now so afraid of lawsuits that I am unable to purchase an atv for my grandkids because someone else has decided what size and kind of atv they can have. My wife, kids and grandkids have put hundreds if not thousands of hours on 3 wheeled atcs and if properly trained, properly rode and properly supervised they were just as safe as motorcycles. If the atc had a design problem like a weld breaking and the front end fell off then I agree the manufacture should be liable. What if the drunk had his chainsaw running also. Then the chainsaw manufacture could be sued also because they didn’t warn against drinking and riding an atv while using the chain saw. What most people don’t realize is that when people win big lawsuits we all end up paying because those additional cost are pasted on to the consumers (us).
Last edited:
Tedram
Tedram
WELL SAID!!!!!! SO TRUE- I agree 100%
Roberto
Guest
The personal responsibility model is a good one. The manufacturer should take responsibility for producing a safe product. Is it OK to put poision in food that is sold then blame the consumer for not being more careful? The purchaser should take responsibility for using a product in a reasonable and safe manner. If you consume 2 liters of vodka in one hour is that the fault of the manufacturer. Unfortunately people and businesses often want to blame someone else for their misfortune. I guess Madhoff could have blamed the stupidity of his victims to believe that he was that good. Murdoch could blame the inaction of the British Govt. and not stopping the hacking earlier. Resolution of responsibility is part of the US judicial system isn't it?
Kenny
Guest
Dram shop act.
A legislative enactment imposing strict liability upon the seller of intoxicating beverages when the sale results in harm to a third party’s person, property , or means of support. Under common law, no cause of action existed against the person dispensing intoxicating beverages for the resulting damages that might be inflicted by the intoxicated person. The common law theorized that the proximate cause of the injury was not the furnishing of liquor but rather the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor. 143 P. 2d 952, 955. In many jurisdictions, the legislature has enacted civil damage acts or “dram shop acts” creating a statutory remedy against the seller of intoxicating beverages, provided that the resulting intoxication causes the injury. Under such acts, the plaintiff has a cause of action against the vendor when, by reason of the intoxication of another, he or she sustains personal injury, property damage, or loss of support. Under this theory, some jurisdictions have held that a spouse may recover “for his or her loss of support” when the other spouse dies as a result of intoxication, either their own or another’s. 158 N.E.
2d 7, 9. Since the statute involves strict liability, the plaintiff need not show negligence on the part of the seller.
The law is unsettled though, as to the seller’s rights of indemnity from the intoxicated person who proximately caused the injury. 45 Am. Jur. 2d §612.
Read more: Dram Shop Act: Definition from Answers.com
As of Fall 2003, the following states have NOT enacted Dram Shop Acts: Kansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
Read more: How many states have the Dram Shop Act
A legislative enactment imposing strict liability upon the seller of intoxicating beverages when the sale results in harm to a third party’s person, property , or means of support. Under common law, no cause of action existed against the person dispensing intoxicating beverages for the resulting damages that might be inflicted by the intoxicated person. The common law theorized that the proximate cause of the injury was not the furnishing of liquor but rather the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor. 143 P. 2d 952, 955. In many jurisdictions, the legislature has enacted civil damage acts or “dram shop acts” creating a statutory remedy against the seller of intoxicating beverages, provided that the resulting intoxication causes the injury. Under such acts, the plaintiff has a cause of action against the vendor when, by reason of the intoxication of another, he or she sustains personal injury, property damage, or loss of support. Under this theory, some jurisdictions have held that a spouse may recover “for his or her loss of support” when the other spouse dies as a result of intoxication, either their own or another’s. 158 N.E.
2d 7, 9. Since the statute involves strict liability, the plaintiff need not show negligence on the part of the seller.
The law is unsettled though, as to the seller’s rights of indemnity from the intoxicated person who proximately caused the injury. 45 Am. Jur. 2d §612.
Read more: Dram Shop Act: Definition from Answers.com
As of Fall 2003, the following states have NOT enacted Dram Shop Acts: Kansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
Read more: How many states have the Dram Shop Act
az-dan
Guest
British Columbia police ID biker who posted video of 186-mph ride - CNN.com
186 mph! If he wrecked then sue the bike manufacture because they built a bike that could be modified to go that fast, sue the highway designer because they designed a highway the you could go that fast on and the police department for not having enough police to inforce the speed limit or blame the idiot and hold him responsible.
186 mph! If he wrecked then sue the bike manufacture because they built a bike that could be modified to go that fast, sue the highway designer because they designed a highway the you could go that fast on and the police department for not having enough police to inforce the speed limit or blame the idiot and hold him responsible.
moore_rb
Stay Thirsty My Friends
And don't forget to sue the helmet manufacturer when their product fails to save his life after crashing at 186 mph...
moore_rb
Stay Thirsty My Friends
hmmm.... a law to penalize the purveyors of potentially unhealthy activity...
I wonder if the Dram Shop Act would penalize Head Shops that sell too many zig-zags or bongs to people who go out and accidentally walk into traffic and get hit by a truck after blazing up... :think:
- another intellectual and moral victory for the sensibility of common law.
jerry
Guest
A forum members relative walked into traffic when blitzed and was badly injured.The state ended up paying for some of this individuals care.I think the state should be able to sue the bar if they over served and the driver if they were speeding to get my money back that I provided (gladly via taxes) for another fellow flawed man.
Kenny
Guest
It's certainly not a new law, the dram act, as we called it in Oregon, was alive and well in my years there. I know of a case where a Tavern was sued using that law, and they were found liable after serving a drunk who left their establishment and killed a person in a auto accident. For sure one of the most notable reactions of the law was the curtailment of alcohol at party's at work places all across the states.
"The Oregon Court of Appeals, in a 1984 decision in the case of Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, the court decided that the dram shop statute created the standard for when a bar or social host could be held liable is visibly intoxicated and not under the influence. The court decided that the two terms are different standards and a person could be under the influence and not visibly intoxicated. Therefore the legal standard blood alcohol level for being under the influence is not relevant in a dram shop claim. The court also ruled in 1985 that the term visibly intoxicated refers to people intoxicated by controlled substances, alcohol or both in Blunt v. Bocci. Also, the Oregon Supreme court has ruled that a plaintiff need not prove forseeability in negligence in dram shop cases because the legislature resolved the issue in the statute in a 1985 ruling in Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern."
For myself I've never filed a lawsuit, or been on disability, though I'm sure I could have won a lawsuit or two, and for sure collected disability insurance.
Last edited: