Can I Sue?

M

mattdabatt

Poster
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
108
im mostly looking for the answers from Americans, so please leave the format like.
I had to write it in 1st person so its easier to understand... or did i :p

America
"Reponse"

1) I'm Robbing your house while your gone. I somehow get in an accident inside your house. Can I Sue?

2) Your driving your car. I decide to j walk and be a jerk, and walk into your car. I'm alive and i got hurt. Can I sue you?
 
Unfortunately not only can you sue, but you could probably have me charged with attempted murder on both accounts.

And win.
 
You can sue anybody for any reason you want. Now whether you'll win or not depends or the merits of your case, how good your (or the other party's) lawyers are and a host of other things that may or may not be in your control.

If you sue for frivolous reasons you may get counter sued and end up a dirt farmer, but hey... Oh, and if you go the frivolous route you will have to find a lawyer willing to be your lackey or go it alone - you might get stuck with huge legal bills in addition to the judgment against you for wasting everybody's time. A good lawyer worth their salt knows if a case stands a chance.
 
Last edited:
actually the second happened to my friend. only he was in the crosswalk to begin with and stepped out right when he was hit. no lawyer would do anything in cincinnati so you probably wouldn't be able t osue for the last one. but the second one has actually happened before. an old lady was getting robbed and a guy cut himself on her glass and he won.
 
Dayman said:
actually the second happened to my friend. only he was in the crosswalk to begin with and stepped out right when he was hit. no lawyer would do anything in cincinnati so you probably wouldn't be able t osue for the last one. but the second one has actually happened before. an old lady was getting robbed and a guy cut himself on her glass and he won.
Click to expand...

The robbing was the first scenario. :p
 
Yeah, I've heard a bunch of stories (I assume some were true) of people hurting themselves in a robbery and suing the robbery victim. Kind of makes me sick, actually :P makes me wonder what other cases this could be done in, like attacking somebody and he beats you back or something.
 
1)If the other person cannot prove the person was robbing their house, then sue sue sue.
2)Pedestrians always trump drivers, if you can put any amount of negligence on the drivers part (rather easily done if there are no direct witnesses), then sue sue sue

Sadly enough, it happens, but a good lawyer (or is it a bad one?) can twist a tale to meet their client.
 
there really wasn't anything wrong with the driver just driving normal speed. and they had witnesses saying he wan't in the crosswalk there really wasn't anything he could do.
 
the first one, yes, it's happened before so many times, it's stupid..
the second one i highly doubt, however if you can show that the driver wasn't careful enough (which is pretty darn easy to do), you can win that one too!

the worst i've heard was this guy driving along on a highway in his RV, when he decided to put the thing on cruise control and go and make a cup of coffee. The RV takes a tumble off a cliff, but the person survives, and he goes on to sue the manufacturing company for a couple million dollars because they didn't say you couldn't do that in the instruction manual.. and he won.. >.<
 
mattdabatt said:
im mostly looking for the answers from Americans, so please leave the format like.
I had to write it in 1st person so its easier to understand... or did i :p

America
"Reponse"

1) I'm Robbing your house while your gone. I somehow get in an accident inside your house. Can I Sue?

2) Your driving your car. I decide to j walk and be a jerk, and walk into your car. I'm alive and i got hurt. Can I sue you?
Click to expand...

1: If you are gone, no. It's as simple as permission. If you are in their house without permission, you can slip in the pool and drown and it's still your own fault. If they are home, they have every right to give them a little gift of 5.56 Mk 262. An 8x6x6 in. wound channel will teach you never to do that again.

2: Yes and no. It sounds awful that emotion can be twisted this way, but if you show any remorse, it WILL be construed as guilt. If this ever happens to you, never say even anything close to "I'm sorry." Just call the police, and beat yourself up later.

In the event of j-walking, the driver is not at fault. They will make you do a roadside sobriety test on the spot as well as breathalyze you. If you are intoxicated it will be your fault.

On a side note, if you are about to be run down by a car. Jump in the air and try to throw yourself into the windshield. Saw something on the Discovery channel a few months back. A stunt guy had a Buick run him down going 40 Mph. He jumped into the windshield and walked away with a mild bruise.
 
Alright, well I am repeating a Business Law class this semester so I'll answer to both.



1) In two cases they could sue. If they are hurt by explosives or by a 'wild' animal. No matter how well protected or how many warnings are put up. In those two cases the owner is strictly liable.

Otherwise probably not because the robber is trespassing on the owners land.

2)It really depends on how liable each party is. Lets give some examples-
--Lets say the driver is speeding and not wearing their prescription glasses. They J-walker does nothing out of the ordinary except he's just J-walking. Now the J-Walker racks up 10,000 dollars in medical bills and wants to sue the driver for 10,000. The judge/jury comes back with the evidence and says, "You both are at fault here, but one is more at fault then the other". The way that works is by percentages. They come back with 25% the J-walkers fault and 75% the drivers fault. The J-walker is awarded 7,500 dollars.

--(Same except as above except...) Now the driver was driving the speed limit and wearing their glasses and the J-walker was drunk. The J-walker sues for 10,000 and the driver counter-sues for 5,000 damages for the car. The judge/jury comes back with a verdict of 80% J-walker's fault and 20% drivers fault. Since the driver is BELOW 50% he doesn't have to pay a dime of the 10,000 the J-walker is suing him for. Also since he counter sued and won, the J-walker has to pay 4,000 for the damages to the driver's car.
 
Last edited:
I think also it depends where in the US you are. The laws vary by state. Cic has a good point that intent and the individual scenario make a lot of difference as well. I think you could bend either scenario to where one or the other person would win, depending on the circumstances.

Speaking specifically to the first scenario, there is the concept of "Castle Doctrine":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Not every state has this type of law. I know in Texas you are allowed to use deadly force on someone who is illegally trespassing on your property and threatening you. So, in this state, if you broke into my house and I shot you, I would likely have the law on my side - I probably wouldn't even be arrested, regardless of whether you were dead or alive, if the circumstances seemed to indicate that you were trespassing with intent to cause me harm.

In some states, I would have to get as far away as possible and announce in a loud voice that I was prepared to defend myself/property with deadly force before firing.

Of course, that is speaking to intentional harm I would cause a robber. As far as unintentional harm, there is a famous and often mis-cited case in the opposite extreme - of a burglar who fell through a skylight and sued for his injuries. (Accounts of this are likely what lead you to ask this question in the first place)

Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight.
Click to expand...

In this case, he sued, and the school settled out of court to avoid paying court costs. This is generally the case that people site when they say 'if someone is injured on your property they can sue and win' - they're partially right, but for the wrong reasons. They often also talk about a knife that the person fell on, and it being a private home, but none of these are part of the actual case. The school settled because even if they won they'd be out court costs, and it was cheaper to settle. There was no decision made regarding whether the thief was actually entitled to the money.
 
Last edited:
Hyperion*1400 said:
On a side note, if you are about to be run down by a car. Jump in the air and try to throw yourself into the windshield. Saw something on the Discovery channel a few months back. A stunt guy had a Buick run him down going 40 Mph. He jumped into the windshield and walked away with a mild bruise.
Click to expand...

very true! however, the main difference between any of us and that stunt guy is that he knew the car was coming. If a Buick was to come hurtling towards me at 40mph, the most i'd manage to do is say "shit" before i'm hit, with really good reflexes i might jump out of the way, but aim for the windshield? I'm not too hopeful ;p

Cicatriz said:
Alright, well I am repeating a Business Law class this semester so I'll answer to both.



1) In two cases they could sue. If they are hurt by explosives or by a 'wild' animal. No matter how well protected or how many warnings are put up. In those two cases the owner is strictly liable.

Otherwise probably not because the robber is trespassing on the owners land.

2)It really depends on how liable each party is. Lets give some examples-
--Lets say the driver is speeding and not wearing their prescription glasses. They J-walker does nothing out of the ordinary except he's just J-walking. Now the J-Walker racks up 10,000 dollars in medical bills and wants to sue the driver for 10,000. The judge/jury comes back with the evidence and says, "You both are at fault here, but one is more at fault then the other". The way that works is by percentages. They come back with 25% the J-walkers fault and 75% the drivers fault. The J-walker is awarded 7,500 dollars.

--(Same except as above except...) Now the driver was driving the speed limit and wearing their glasses and the J-walker was drunk. The J-walker sues for 10,000 and the driver counter-sues for 5,000 damages for the car. The judge/jury comes back with a verdict of 80% J-walker's fault and 20% drivers fault. Since the driver is BELOW 50% he doesn't have to pay a dime of the 10,000 the J-walker is suing him for. Also since he counter sued and won, the J-walker has to pay 4,000 for the damages to the driver's car.
Click to expand...

very informative, thanks!! *turns to everyone and says in an educator-like fashion* Ok guys, next time your house is being robbed, put the shotgun away, and get down to some knifin' ;p
 
Agent86 and I are your Advisors online already...

We are now offering to be your legal advisers IRL! (With a fee of course)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top