Can I Sue?

[subtle_turtle]

Remember, everyone, this is why we have juries. If a lawsuit seems so outrageous that no one in their right mind would support it, yet it got by 6-12 presumably rational members of a jury, odds are there is something you aren't hearing in the story. Frivolous lawsuits, despite the hype about them, are usually tossed out before the jury, or if they do make it to trial, shot down by the jury.
For example, the infamous "McDonalds Hot Coffee" case, where a woman spilled coffee in her lap and sued McDonalds for the resulting burns. Sounds stupid at face value, the woman should know that coffee is hot, right? However, what you don't hear is that McDonalds had a policy at the time to keep it's coffee at 180 degrees, hot enough to cause 3rd degree (full thickness) burns within 2-7 seconds of contact with human skin. Coffee should not exceed 140 degrees to be considered safe for consumption. McDonalds was aware of this, as there had been more than 700 claims of injury against them for this reason since 1982 to the incident. The woman in question, who was not driving at the time of the injury (she was 72 years old, and her grandson was driving her) had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, a potentially LETHAL situation (her age and the location of the burns are serious risk factors for complications). So what seems at the surface like a frivolous lawsuit trying to "cash in" on McDonalds success and fortune is actually a case of a corporation knowingly serving an unsafe product to customers. Of course they were liable! (Although the jury did acknowledge that the women was 20% at fault as well, so McDonalds was only held 80% liable).
So when a lawsuit seems to ridiculous to believe, odds are you don't have the full story.

 

[jeod66]

Yes, and yes. We had an incident EXACTLY like the second situation, to be honest; crossing guard walks into the car, claims he was hit. A lot of nonsense happened with the police department inflating charges and such, but there was still a fine over it. He completely blew it at the magistrate's as well, claiming "30 mph" when the car was STOPPED. Walked right into the side of the car and everything, then started screaming about being a "school crossing guard." You can sue over anything in this country.

Off topic (sort of): Quite frankly, I'm also a little sick of reading "known to the state of California to ........" on everything nowadays; I know perfectly well that my 60/40 lead solder could be bad for me. I buy it because it works, and that's what's important to me.

 

[WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!!]

A little bit of background about myself: I'm a law student.

As some people have already mentiond, for good or bad America inherited the common law from England. That being said, every state has modified their common law in different ways, and when that has happened I'll try to point it out. Both of these situations are covered by Tort law, and more the specific cause of action that you would have in these cases s negligence. An unintentional Tort.

Now you may be askng yourselves, "but WAKKA... what is negligence?" Well, in a nutshell, negligece has four components:

1) Duty (you have a duty not to harm people through your own affirmative actions. However, in limited circumstances, you may have a duty to others, even if what you did wrong was fail[/] to act.
2) Beach of duty (there is a lot of stuff to go in here for now, but for the most part this is how you analyze this component: "Would a reasonable person with my characteristics have done what I did nor not done what I failed to do?"
3) Factual cause (but-for my action/inction, would the other party have been harmed?)
4) Proximate cause (was the harm caused within the risk... i.e. was the harm foreseeable?)

Now, onto the specific hypotheticals you just provided


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

1) Duty

The old common law doctrine was that you had a 'full' duty to guests, a limited duty to invitees (you must warn them of any dangers/traps on the property) and no affirmative duty to trespassers (i.e. you couldn't directly harm them, but if they injured themselves on your property you weren't negligent).

In the vast majority of jurisdictions, this is not the case today. Some say you have a duty to everyone that comes on your property. Some say that there is no difference between an invitee and a trespasser. However, it's important to keep in mind that you can be found liable in this situation.

A footnote: if you intentionally set something up (a trap) to injure a trespasser, that's called an intentional tort, and isn't covered by negligence. Then you're in trouble.

2) Breach of duty

In any hypothetical, you have to find a specific action/inaction that caused the other person harm. I'm not sure what that is in this hypothetical... but if you didn't exercise reasonable care in your action/inaction, then you breached your duty.

As for factual cause and cause-in-fact, there's not really enough information to go off of.

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?

1) Duty is automatically covered here. You have a duty to not injure another with your actions, and your action of driving a car injured someone.

2) Breach of duty. This is the biggy. Would a reasonable person have been driving the way that you were? Were you speeding? Were you paying attention? Etc. We need something specific here.

Causation... again... I won't go into.

However, this brings up another important caveat in Torts.... the defendant (here the driver) can bring up affirmative defenses. Here, he is going to claim that the jaywalker was comparatively negligent.[i/] Here's a little info on what that means:

Originally at common law, there was the doctrine of contributory negligence. What you did was run the same analysis for the injured party as you did for the party doing the injuring, and see if they themselves were negligent (duty, breach, causation). Under the contributory negligence scheme... if the injured party was at all negligence (even 1% negligent), then they were completely barred from recovery. Here, your jaywalker recovers nothing.

However, most jurisdictions use comparative negligence. This means that you compare the negligence of the two parties and determine the percentage that each party needs to pay. Like contributory negligence, his means that the plaintiff (injured party) had to have been negligent him/herself.


If you enjoyed this stuff, you should consider going to law school!


Oh, and before I forget.... so that I'm not setting myself up for a Tort... I am not a lawyer, and I did not provide this information for the purpose of giving legal advice. Do not rely on it. If you are being sued or contemplating a suit, discuss it with an actual attorney. I was merely responding to an academic hypothetical.

 

[TAZ {CANADA}]

Looks like the States sue any one for any reason, well that is what I am noticing in the last 10 years

It was just a friendly note, so plz don't sue me

TAZ

 

[DarkosCY]

brilliant post wakka, just one question: if you get in trouble for setting up a "trap" to stop burglars, where has the right to defend one's property and oneself gone? can the burglar just walk away unpunished? that's the part that always gets me worked up whenever we debate this at school..

oh, and

Oh, and before I forget.... so that I'm not setting myself up for a Tort... I am not a lawyer, and I did not provide this information for the purpose of giving legal advice. Do not rely on it. If you are being sued or contemplating a suit, discuss it with an actual attorney. I was merely responding to an academic hypothetical.

LOL!

 

[agent86]

Really good insights here, I enjoy thinking about the law but I <3 my current career too much to do law school

I think the two things that we can conclude without a shadow of a doubt are:

1) The answer to both your questions is, "It Depends" - on the circumstances, on the location, on the people involved in the trial, the legal climate, etc.
2) You don't want to be involved in it, whatever the circumstances are

 

[featherfoot07]

In both accounts you'd be dead becuase this is Texas, and in Texas we shoot intruders and run over people who walk in front of us.

Can't sue when you dead now can you, CAN YOU!

 

[WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!!]

brilliant post wakka, just one question: if you get in trouble for setting up a "trap" to stop burglars, where has the right to defend one's property and oneself gone? can the burglar just walk away unpunished? that's the part that always gets me worked up whenever we debate this at school..

Well, because it's intentional Tort, it depends on whether you had an intent to harm or not. For instance, a classic case that every law students reads is about a person who had things stolen from their garden. Their solution was to plant spikes on their side of the brick wall (so that if an intruder jumped over they would be severely injured). A boy had lost something over the wall, jumped the wall to retrive it, and was injured.

An easy way to mitigate this problem (though not 100% effective) is to post warnings about traps. This is why you see "guard dog" signs on some houses. If your intent is to stop people from entering your property, that's one thing. However, if your intent is to cause harm to a trespasser, that's something else. Setting a trap and not providing any warnings about it just screams that you have the intent to harm, not the intent to protect.

And as for defending your property directly (rather than through a trap), it all depends on how the trespasser entered the property and how you respond...

Oh, and before I forget.... so that I'm not setting myself up for a Tort... I am not a lawyer, and I did not provide this information for the purpose of giving legal advice. Do not rely on it. If you are being sued or contemplating a suit, discuss it with an actual attorney. I was merely responding to an academic hypothetical.

 

[Ballzac]

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?

#1 has acutally happened before, I have heard of a case like that a while ago, I believe the robber lost it -_-

#2 you COULD sue but if the driver was doing nothing wrong (not speeding/watching the road/not recklessly driving) then your probly not winnin that case

 

[mattdabatt]

lol for you curious people NO. i will not do what i asked. I'm just curious because some of the stories are outrages. lol even though you guys aren't lawyers i learned more form you guys about how our law system works than my government book. I don't think i want to be a lawyer though. I'm more into social work like social worker, counselor, or some type of sociologist

 

[gotrice]

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

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?

lol no u cant sue for either

 

[vaderboy]

You can sue. I would have probably lost too. There was a story of a man who attempted suicide, but somebody saved him. He sued and won the case!

 

[frap]

Yes you can sue in both accounts.