making lawyers look bad

[Martha]

Interesting court decision. May join the ranks of spilled coffee and the like.
A husband and wife had some friends, a couple, over to their house. The house had one bathroom. One of the guys was using the bathroom. The two women had to go, and for some reason decided to use a cement laundry sink as a toilet. One climbed on and then the other. The sink crashed to the floor, injuring the woman who was a guest in the house. She sued the owners for her injuries.

The owners moved the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the sink wasn't defective and they had no duty to protect guests from acting like idiots. The courts have allowed the case to continue for the jury to decide whether there was a breach of some duty to the guests. Trial hasn't happened yet.

grrrr.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

Heh, I wanted to post this earlier but until now didn't have an appropriate venue:

http://comics.com/comics/franknernest/archive/franknernest-20050606.html

 

[TromboneAl]

I sure hope the jury tells them to piss off.

 

[bow-tie]

Interesting court decision...  A husband and wife had some friends, a couple,  over to their house... 

With friends like that, who need enemies?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think he should have said "Urine idiot!" and dismissed it.

 

[Austin_Explorer]

Dismissed and full compensation to the defendant for their expenses.

 

[JPatrick]

Come on now, let's take it easy on the lawyers.
We all know it is just that 98% that makes all the rest look bad.

 

[Cal]

Interesting that we are all commenting on the lawyers. I think we need to give lawyers a bigger break. I don't want a lawyer to make a judgment about my case - I want them to legally represent me.

I think we (as a community / country) should be shaming the people that file these kind of lawsuits.  The jury should send the plantiffs packing and award a fat judgment to the defendants and they should be made to pay court costs for wasting everyone's time.  But, no doubt, some idiot jury will award money to the plantiff and further encourage people to sue over stupid stuff.

It's easy to blame the lawyers - it absolves us of our collective guilt in this lawsuit lottery. It is us - the jury of one's peers - that has created this monster and it will only be put down when enough people realize it and change their behaviour. 

 

[Martha]

 

[wildcat]

Starving lawyer straight out of school maybe or I hope? Martha we still love ya.

 

[Eagle43]

I sure hope the jury tells them to piss off.

Great, TA, you beat me to the punch!

You really can't blame this one on lawyers. Good thing I'm not on the jury cause we'd have our own lawsuit if they wanted to award a penny!

Martha,
Do not judges throw out lawsuits as "frivilous (sp) and unwarranted" any more or do we just try all of these whacko lawsuits

 

[JPatrick]

Come on now, let's take it easy on the lawyers.
We all know it is just that 98% that makes all the rest look bad.

Well I guess I've been a little tough on the lawyers, at least for this forum.
I'll raise my percentage from the above 2% up to 17% to reflect the info in the excerpt below (USA Today)  But, that's the best I can do.


Falling esteem  (from USA Today)
"Unfortunately for most of us, there are very few professions that have not experienced an erosion in prestige during the past 30 years. While the percentage of those who assign teachers great prestige has risen since 1977, lawyers have slipped from 36% to 17%, priests and ministers from 41% to 32%, engineers from 34% to 29%, athletes from 26% to 21% and journalists from 17% to 14%."

To end this post on a happy note, the same article indicated that teachers. police officers, fire fighters and nurses had shown large increases lately.  Scientists are at the top of the heap with doctors close.

 

[thechoson]

I believe for someone to be held liable in a tort, the defendant has to have acted negligently and that negligence has to directly lead to the injury.

I would assume the owner did not act negligently at all, and have no idea why this case would even have to continue. I don't see anywhere that the owner could have acted negligently. The ONLY possibility I see is whether that cement sink was incorrectly installed or something to that regard, so that if it was used, it would cause harm to whoever used it. But I would assume if this was the case then the ladies would have to prove that the cement sink broke under reasonable usage, and i doubt this would classify. But that is the only sliver of doubt in this case I see that might have made it continue?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

If he didnt tell the plaintiff "urine idiot!" he should have told the defendant "urine trouble".

 

[azanon]

I would assume the owner did not act negligently at all, and have no idea why this case would even have to continue.  I don't see anywhere that the owner could have acted negligently.

If i read the story correctly, this husband and wife had "a couple" over.   Then "one of the guys" had to use the bathroom.  (so 2 of 4 of them are guys, but we know that the ones that own the house are man and woman).   Thus, the invited couple were also man and woman.

So, back to the story, one woman hopped up first on the sink (this had to be the wife and coowner of the house) and, in doing so, non-verbally suggested to the female guest that this is something safe to do (because this is her house and she should be relatively familiar with how secure the sink is).   Subsequently, the female guest hopped up and did the same thing and then it went crashing down.

Sounds like it very well could be negligence to me.   

 

[JB]

And I thought you were of average intelligence!

Ok, trick question:
A couple has two kids. One is a boy.
What is the probability that the other is also a boy?

 

[azanon]

Ok, trick question:
A couple has two kids.   One is a boy.
What is the probability that the other is also a boy?

50%.   Those are mutually exclusive events (the two births), so the fact that one child is a boy is irrelevant to the probably of the second being a boy.

Had you asked me what is the chance a couple that had two kids would end up having 2 boys, the chance would be 25%.

 

[Cal]

If i read the story correctly, this husband and wife had "a couple" over.   Then "one of the guys" had to use the bathroom.  (so 2 of 4 of them are guys, but we know that the ones that own the house are man and woman).   Thus, the invited couple were also man and woman.

So, back to the story, one woman hopped up first on the sink (this had to be the wife and coowner of the house) and, in doing so, non-verbally suggested to the female guest that this is something safe to do (because this is her house and she should be relatively familiar with how secure the sink is).   Subsequently, the female guest hopped up and did the same thing and then it went crashing down.

Sounds like it very well could be negligence to me.   

This is where IMHO the law and common sense go in two different directions. I think you laid out a good LEGAL argument as to how this might be negligence.

What normal person thinks that a sink was designed to be used as a toilet? Yes, some of us have done some pretty unusual things in dire circumstances (as most women will tell you that no matter where you go, there is ALWAYS a wait to use the bathroom). Does anyone posting here really expect that a sink is tested to withstand the weight of a person sitting on it?  Note, I didn't ask if you thought it would support the weight - obviously these people "thought" it would - but do you have the expectation that a sink would be designed and installed in such a way that would allow you to use it in a way that it was not designed to be used

These are the same people that make it necessary to have a warning label on my hair dryer telling me that I shouldn't use my hair dryer while in the shower.  I think we should let nature thin the herd a little. If you're so dumb that you are going to use a hair dryer while in the shower or get injured because you used a sink as a toilet.....

Anyway, sounds like alcohol or some other controlled substance was in play during the evening in question......

 

[sgeeeee]

At first, I was thinking that if I were selected for the jury I would want to sue for loss of valuable retirement time. But my case is severely weakened by the fact that I actually wasted this much time reading this thread.

 

[HFWR]

Why do lawyers wear neckties?

To keep the foreskin out of their faces.............

Ok, someone had to "sink" to this level!

 

[Nords]

I think he should have said "Urine idiot!" and dismissed it.

You've been waiting a loooooooong time for that one, haven't you?!?

 

[TromboneAl]

Do not judges throw out lawsuits as "frivilous (sp) and unwarranted"

Ah, but if you let a judge decide whether a case is frivolous, then you've done away with the jury system.   On the other hand, maybe the judge could declare that the woman was an "enema combatant" and then she couldn't get a jury trial anyway.  "Urine Guantanamo Now!"

 

[JPatrick]

Something good will come of this.
I'm sure Home Depot is looking at selling a dual purpose sink for the laundry room, and how bout the possibilities for those fresh smelling dryer sheets that must have been close at hand.  Need a hand dryer?  Simple as diverting some of the dryer exhaust into the room.  Oh yeah, everyone will need a magazine rack as well. 8)

 

[JB]

50%. Those are mutually exclusive events (the two births), so the fact that one child is a boy is irrelevant to the probably of the second being a boy.

Had you asked me what is the chance a couple that had two kids would end up having 2 boys, the chance would be 25%.

Correct answer: 1/3
I told ya it was a trick question

The key is that you don't know which one is a boy, just that one is a boy.

 

[moghopper]

Correct answer: 1/3
I told ya it was a trick question

The key is that you don't know which one is a boy, just that one is a boy.

I still go with 1/2 as indicated earlier.

if you have
gb
bg
bb

you might be led to think of it as 1/3rd. but in fact, you have to count "bb" x2, which leads to 1/2.