Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

488
Banjo Lovers Online


Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

 New Topic  Topic Locked

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (9) 

Oct 1, 2020 - 2:48:39 PM

mander

USA

4403 posts since 10/7/2007

The other night...
A young lady was a tad drunk in a local bar. She pestered a young man. The young man pushed her to get her away from him, and she fell, hit her head and went to the hospital with a concussion. Whether she fell because she was drunk, or because he pushed her too hard, I do not know.

The next day, my son and I were walking by this bar, and I noticed they had one of those signs that reads, roughly, We accept all people ..... and at the end, it reads, "You are Safe here."
I said to my son, "They should cut off that last line from the sign, or someone, namely the girl from last night, could use the implied message to sue them."
My son got mad at me and thought I was full of it.

The truth is, people can sue for absolutely no reason at all. But given the fact that the sign clearly states "You are Safe here," doesn't that mean the place of business accepts liability if something happens in regard to your safety?

Oct 1, 2020 - 3:41:42 PM
like this

banjonz

New Zealand

11023 posts since 6/29/2003

Living in the antipodes, and more aligned with the British culture than the American one (although this is changing,) I have come to see that the American culture is a very litigious one. I guess you are correct when you say people there will sue for no reason at all (or at least try to). I am thankful we tend to be more reasonable here.

Oct 1, 2020 - 3:48:10 PM

ChunoTheDog

Canada

407 posts since 8/9/2019

In most places, bars and any other alcohol serving establishments legally have to guarantee the safety of its patrons (that's why places have bouncers etc.)

Sucks to say but yes, the young lady probably has legal grounds upon which to sue (both the bar and the man she was pestering). Wether she wins or not is a different story.

I know someone who bought his home through funds obtained after suing the bar in which he got his ass severely kicked.

Oct 1, 2020 - 7:26:38 PM

10838 posts since 1/15/2005

I don't think the sign would have any bearing on a potential lawsuit. Some golf courses require a waiver when renting a golf cart, but if there is a problem and someone gets hurt that does not stop them from suing the course and possibly winning the lawsuit.  I don't think a sign completely exonerates an establishment for malfeasance or vice versa.

Edited by - BanjoLink on 10/01/2020 19:29:05

Oct 2, 2020 - 4:19:17 AM

3666 posts since 12/6/2009

In the good ol USA all laws are written and passed into law by lawyers. So it’s natural that those laws will benefit the lawyers. What better way to make a killing then to sue for millions and charge and receive 1/3 of settlements (or more)……the injured and the lawyer will always win….drunk or not.

Oct 2, 2020 - 4:44:13 AM

Texasbanjo (Moderator)

USA

24987 posts since 8/3/2003

If you're asking for a legal definition, you really need to ask a lawyer. We laypeople aren't schooled in legal-eze and can't/shouldn't answer legal questions. We can, however, give our ideas, but not our legal opinions.

And in today's world, people are litigious and can sue over anything. Whether they win or not sometimes depends on how good/bad their lawyer is, how lenient/harsh the judge is and so on.

Oct 2, 2020 - 6:33:49 AM

73335 posts since 5/9/2007

Bars are responsible for the actions of their inebriated customers.
If they get in a fight or car accident at or leaving a bar the alcohol sold to them is the "fuel" for the problem.
Many bars offer rides home for those folks.
I surely wouldn't want to own a bar.

I wonder how many angry drunks are packing a loaded hand gun.

Oct 2, 2020 - 6:57:57 AM
likes this

2171 posts since 2/10/2013

I don't think alcohol has much to do with shootings. I get the feeling that some individuals develop a fixation on something they dislike or consider unfair, and "brood" on the subject until their emotions reach the point where they are motivated to obtain a weapon and commit an act of violence. Their choice of weapon can include things other than guns. Things like automobiles, illegal lethal chemicals, etc..

Oct 2, 2020 - 8:41:03 AM
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

13943 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Hauser

I don't think alcohol has much to do with shootings. I get the feeling that some individuals develop a fixation on something they dislike or consider unfair, and "brood" on the subject until their emotions reach the point where they are motivated to obtain a weapon and commit an act of violence. Their choice of weapon can include things other than guns. Things like automobiles, illegal lethal chemicals, etc..


In Wisconsin a person deliberately crossed the line and drove his vehicle head on into a motorcyclist killing him.  His justification?  All Harley riders are White supremacists.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/wisconsin-driver-intentionally-crashes-head-first-into-motorcyclist/

Oct 2, 2020 - 2:17:23 PM

9668 posts since 8/22/2006

Is the bar an LLC??
Good question. Limited Liability Cooperation.

Oct 2, 2020 - 2:32:43 PM

10838 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by DC5
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Hauser

I don't think alcohol has much to do with shootings. I get the feeling that some individuals develop a fixation on something they dislike or consider unfair, and "brood" on the subject until their emotions reach the point where they are motivated to obtain a weapon and commit an act of violence. Their choice of weapon can include things other than guns. Things like automobiles, illegal lethal chemicals, etc..


In Wisconsin a person deliberately crossed the line and drove his vehicle head on into a motorcyclist killing him.  His justification?  All Harley riders are White supremacists.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/wisconsin-driver-intentionally-crashes-head-first-into-motorcyclist/


Dave, if that's the criteria, then we certainly have a lot of African-American white supremacists in my neck of the woods.

Oct 2, 2020 - 2:57:21 PM

10266 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

MGM Las Vegas just lost to the tune of 800,000,000 because their hotel was clearly negligent in not being built to be mad-gunman-proof. Any other owners of such buildings should be trembling. But how does one protect against the unforeseen? And how can that be "negligent"?

As a law professor once told me "you can sue the Pope for rape. The question is: can you win?". With the right lawyer in front of the right jury, anything can be won. And the more tragic the victim, the less that logic matters.

But I do doubt that bar's window sign does anything to increase their liability. Most bars carry heavy liability coverage anyway.

Oct 2, 2020 - 3:43:52 PM

Owen

Canada

6516 posts since 6/5/2011
Online Now

Bill, was it  the actual  construction [i.e. "not being built" to certain specs.], or was it management policies, or the actions or lack of actions by employees, or something else altogether that was behind the settlement?   I know the law can be an ass, but .........

Oct 2, 2020 - 3:47:47 PM
likes this

10838 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

MGM Las Vegas just lost to the tune of 800,000,000 because their hotel was clearly negligent in not being built to be mad-gunman-proof. Any other owners of such buildings should be trembling. But how does one protect against the unforeseen? And how can that be "negligent"?

As a law professor once told me "you can sue the Pope for rape. The question is: can you win?". With the right lawyer in front of the right jury, anything can be won. And the more tragic the victim, the less that logic matters.

But I do doubt that bar's window sign does anything to increase their liability. Most bars carry heavy liability coverage anyway.


Reminds me of the "Round-Up" case where billions have been set aside for lawsuits even though it has never been proven that glysophate causes cancer.  The product does not even require a warning label.

Oct 2, 2020 - 4:04:30 PM
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

13943 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

MGM Las Vegas just lost to the tune of 800,000,000 because their hotel was clearly negligent in not being built to be mad-gunman-proof. Any other owners of such buildings should be trembling. But how does one protect against the unforeseen? And how can that be "negligent"?

As a law professor once told me "you can sue the Pope for rape. The question is: can you win?". With the right lawyer in front of the right jury, anything can be won. And the more tragic the victim, the less that logic matters.

But I do doubt that bar's window sign does anything to increase their liability. Most bars carry heavy liability coverage anyway.


Reminds me of the "Round-Up" case where billions have been set aside for lawsuits even though it has never been proven that glysophate causes cancer.  The product does not even require a warning label.


And it has yet to be removed from the shelves. 

Oct 2, 2020 - 5:55:17 PM

10266 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Owen, it my guess, and it's only a guess, that MGM would have been sued no matter what they had previously done, or not done. In the perfect 20/20 hindsight of the trial lawyer, there would always have been something more that could have been done, and IF ONLY, well then lives would have been saved.

Oct 2, 2020 - 6:11:07 PM

Owen

Canada

6516 posts since 6/5/2011
Online Now

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the standard is supposed to be "reasonable and prudent," not that "something more could have been done."   So, was the liability/negligence  in how the building was built or some other factor(s)?   wink   

But I do agree, there's no point in suing a down-and-outer.

Oct 2, 2020 - 6:19:33 PM

kww

USA

610 posts since 6/21/2008

quote:
Originally posted by Owen

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the standard is supposed to be "reasonable and prudent," not that "something more could have been done."   So, was the liability/negligence  in how the building was built or some other factor(s)?   wink   

But I do agree, there's no point in suing a down-and-outer.


I would suspect that allowing a guest to haul an arsenal to his room just might be considered negligent. But that's just me.

Oct 2, 2020 - 7:39:01 PM
likes this

10266 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Why yes of course they KNEW that he had an arsenal and then ALLOWED it. How dare they! And if they didn't know, well why didn't they? Is it not a hotel's responsibility to know the intentions of every guest? Can't they read minds? The survivors demand answers, and if no answers are coming since the shooter is dead, they will settle for money. Lots of money, and who cares where it comes from as long as somebody pays. And what about the restaurant that fed that monster, should they not also be liable? I mean, if he couldn't eat then maybe he couldn't shoot, so sue that Vegas buffet! And if the Route 91 Harvest Music festival had never happened then all of those targets would not have been outside his window. Sue those country music stars, leading innocent victims to their slaughter! Surely they could have foreseen this, just as well as Mandalay Bay Hotel was supposed to have done.

Oct 2, 2020 - 8:06:20 PM

Owen

Canada

6516 posts since 6/5/2011
Online Now

^^^ sounds reasonable and prudent to me.  wink

Oct 2, 2020 - 8:30:48 PM

10838 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by DC5
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

MGM Las Vegas just lost to the tune of 800,000,000 because their hotel was clearly negligent in not being built to be mad-gunman-proof. Any other owners of such buildings should be trembling. But how does one protect against the unforeseen? And how can that be "negligent"?

As a law professor once told me "you can sue the Pope for rape. The question is: can you win?". With the right lawyer in front of the right jury, anything can be won. And the more tragic the victim, the less that logic matters.

But I do doubt that bar's window sign does anything to increase their liability. Most bars carry heavy liability coverage anyway.


Reminds me of the "Round-Up" case where billions have been set aside for lawsuits even though it has never been proven that glysophate causes cancer.  The product does not even require a warning label.


And it has yet to be removed from the shelves. 


True Dave, and it won't be.  The research branch of the World Health Organization said that they thought it "could probably cause cancer" which seems to me like a dubious claim and not very scientific in nature.  However, the regulators on just about every continent have back the manufacturer (Monsanto at the time ..... now Bayer).  The National Institute of Health has found no association between glyphosate and cancer and the EPA says that it is a "false claim" to say on the product label that it causes cancer.  This information is from the New York Times article written very recently.

Oct 2, 2020 - 9:21:58 PM

kww

USA

610 posts since 6/21/2008

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Why yes of course they KNEW that he had an arsenal and then ALLOWED it. How dare they! And if they didn't know, well why didn't they? Is it not a hotel's responsibility to know the intentions of every guest?


Any hotel that would let this past the front desk is negligent.

An innkeeper has a legal obligation to police his guests in order to protect other guests. Once a single guest of the Mandalay Bay hotel went to the festival, the Mandalay Bay became liable. https://law.jrank.org/pages/7654/Innkeeper-Liability.html


 

Oct 3, 2020 - 6:43:19 AM
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

13943 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by kww
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Why yes of course they KNEW that he had an arsenal and then ALLOWED it. How dare they! And if they didn't know, well why didn't they? Is it not a hotel's responsibility to know the intentions of every guest?


Any hotel that would let this past the front desk is negligent.

An innkeeper has a legal obligation to police his guests in order to protect other guests. Once a single guest of the Mandalay Bay hotel went to the festival, the Mandalay Bay became liable. https://law.jrank.org/pages/7654/Innkeeper-Liability.html


First off, I would hope that the desk clerk does not know my intentions when I check into a room.  Second, they have no implied right to check my luggage.  All firearms can be broken down into manageable components and put into luggage.  Two decent sized roll ons could easily carry a lot of guns.  Lee Harvey Oswald hid his rifle in a box intended for flowers.  Do you really want hotel desk clerks going through all your luggage at check in?  I'm getting real tired of the argument that it is the fault of anyone but the person committing the crime.  This is all the result of our litigious society where you look for the deep pockets.  Nothing in the linked article says that the hotel could in any way be responsible for the acts of this mad man.  In fact it clearly states  "An innkeeper has an obligation to reasonably protect guests from injury while at the inn.  This duty of reasonable care mandates vigilance in protection of the guests from foreseeable risks."   Are you claiming that it is "reasonable" to think that all who check into a hotel are homicidal madmen?  Do you really think that this was a "foreseeable risk"?  If that's the case then we must immediately remove the keys from all drivers because it is foreseeable that they will likely drive with distracted and cause harm to others.  It is not reasonable, or possible to foresee events that have never happened before.  Was it reasonably foreseeable that hijackers would crash planes into the World Trade Center?  If it was, then wasn't the building architect, and the designer of the airplanes responsible for the attacks on 9/11? 

Oct 3, 2020 - 6:47:04 AM
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

13943 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
quote:
Originally posted by DC5
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

MGM Las Vegas just lost to the tune of 800,000,000 because their hotel was clearly negligent in not being built to be mad-gunman-proof. Any other owners of such buildings should be trembling. But how does one protect against the unforeseen? And how can that be "negligent"?

As a law professor once told me "you can sue the Pope for rape. The question is: can you win?". With the right lawyer in front of the right jury, anything can be won. And the more tragic the victim, the less that logic matters.

But I do doubt that bar's window sign does anything to increase their liability. Most bars carry heavy liability coverage anyway.


Reminds me of the "Round-Up" case where billions have been set aside for lawsuits even though it has never been proven that glysophate causes cancer.  The product does not even require a warning label.


And it has yet to be removed from the shelves. 


True Dave, and it won't be.  The research branch of the World Health Organization said that they thought it "could probably cause cancer" which seems to me like a dubious claim and not very scientific in nature.  However, the regulators on just about every continent have back the manufacturer (Monsanto at the time ..... now Bayer).  The National Institute of Health has found no association between glyphosate and cancer and the EPA says that it is a "false claim" to say on the product label that it causes cancer.  This information is from the New York Times article written very recently.


Another thing that bothers me on all these Round-up claims of cancer.  How was it absorbed by the body?  None say.  Was it through the skin, lungs, ingested?  What is the dosage requirement?  The Round-up labels clearly state to wear gloves and protective clothing. 

Oct 3, 2020 - 6:58:25 AM

Owen

Canada

6516 posts since 6/5/2011
Online Now

Dave, I haven't seen "the argument that it is the fault of anyone but the person committing the crime."   I expect this is another not-everything-in-the-world-is-black-or-white issue....lots of "contributing factors."    With MGM's resources to fight the case(s), it seems a bit odd to me that they'd settle if they or their lawyers didn't see some responsibility.    But, I suppose there's always the possibility that I'm only seeing what I want to see.

Edited by - Owen on 10/03/2020 07:10:59

Oct 3, 2020 - 7:41:07 AM
likes this

10266 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Owen, that is a bit like saying that anyone who takes a plea deal must be guilty or else they would not have taken the deal. But when threatened with much worse, many will take the deal. The lawyers only agreed to a settlement because they feared an even bigger judgement. I am saying that such potential judgement was based upon the emotional sympathies of the jurors towards the survivors and not upon any careful examination of the concept of duty of reasonable care. The jury selection techniques and jury manipulation techniques of top legal counsel are formidable and defense counsel was concerned only with limiting ruinous loss, and not any sense of responsibility, which is a laughable concept in the legal world.

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (9) 

 New Topic  Topic Locked

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.390625