In the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product.
Why? They are shipped in plastic bags suitable for international usage. And each bag has printed on it on or more:
"This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag." "Immediately dispose of this bag."
So each time we receive a product, we chuckle at the US, because they need to be told this.
(Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it.)
> In the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product.
And you should. The U.S. system is ruled by the fear of -- not harm to consumers -- but lawsuits.
> "This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag." "Immediately dispose of this bag."
The purpose of those warnings is to guard against predatory lawyers. The risk to consumers is only a smokescreen.
Here's a story from the U.S.: A robber was escaping the police by sprinting across a rooftop. He stepped onto a painted-over glass skylight, fell through, and was injured. He successfully sued the building's owners for painting over the skylight. True story.
> Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it.
Exactly right. But the legal system isn't about protecting consumers, it's about defending against liability lawyers.
Do you know where the court judgement can be found? It's likely "Bodine v. Enterprise High School", but all I can find are people commenting about the case, and they aren't all consistent.
For example, according to most accounts, the robber was not being chased by the police but instead was trying to steal a (or several) light fixture(s), and the police weren't involved until after the thief fell.
Actually, researching further, it doesn't seem that there is a court judgement. It looks like the suit was settled out of court, so it's "successful" only in the sense that the plaintiff received money, and not in the sense of being awarded that money.
So, I'm not sure what lesson there is from that case. Can you elaborate? After all, no matter how many labels there might be, anyone can file a lawsuit.
Also, that court case was during the 1980s, and deals with specifics of California law which have since changed. How does this 30 year old non-case affect business decisions now?
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.
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 ), 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?
> 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.
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?
> 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?
In the account I read, he was on the roof because he wanted to steal a light fixture which was on the roof. Previously that evening they had tried, and failed, to steal a floodlight from the school’s tennis courts. There was nothing about the man trying specifically to avoid detection any more than any other criminal would not want to be caught. Certainly the police were not at the school.
This leads me to believe we are not talking about the same incident. I quickly found several cases where someone fell through a skylight. For recent examples:
These reasons for being on a roof seem to be even more pointless than stealing a floodlight, and yet they were on the roof, and were not trying to escape or evade the police.
I tentatively conclude that you really don't know the details and have been passing along stories you heard. As with any friend-of-a-friend stories, these are liable to be very different than what actually happened. I similarly conclude that you believe in the truthiness of your account, even if the truth is somewhere else. However, the laws have changed since Bodine v. Enterprise High School was filed, while beliefs based on echos of that case are stuck in the Reagen era.
I don't understand your cancer reference. The answer is "yes" for some people, "no" for others, and "irrelevant" for still others. Some people actively pursue cigarette smoking, with its increased chance of cancer. Others choose diets which they think will help prevent cancer. Still others know nothing about cancer, or let it be in God's or Fate's hands.
"This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag." "Immediately dispose of this bag."
So each time we receive a product, we chuckle at the US, because they need to be told this. (Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it.)