This is what is so sad about our legal system

[stomie]

This is what is so sad about our legal system.

If you post a sign on your yard BEWARE OF DOG, you are acknowledging that you are aware your dog is dangerous and you are held liable if he bites someone.

If you DON'T post a sign saying BEWARE OF DOG, you neglected to warn people about your dog and you are held liable if he bites someone.

WTF!??

I guess the best thing to do is post this sign:

TO COVER MYSELF, LEGALLY, I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CLAIMS AS TO THE VISCIOUCNESS OF MY DOG OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BEWARE OF HIM. SIMPLY LOOK AT HIS TEETH AND HIS SIZE AND HIS BUILD AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMN MIND AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO BEWARE OF HIM OR NOT!!

 

[TossingSalads]

Great post. You are right on the money

 

[djv]

This would make for a good bight me Friday thread.

 

[dawgball]

I don't know the truthfulness of this legal story, but what if you jsut had a sign that said "Dog Present"?:shrug:

 

[loophole]

no offense stomie, but this purported statement of the law, as are most rants about the legal system in this forum, is a distortion and in no way an accurate representation of the law.


while negligence laws vary from state to state, there is some general uniformity surrounding one's liability for dangerous dogs (or most other dangerous animals, for that matter). with dogs, you must be on notice (apparent to a reasonable persn) that your dog is dangerous to be held responsible for a dog bite. this occurs when you know that your dog has bitten someone in the past. it also occurs if you keep a breed of dog that is known to be vicious. this knowledge requirement protects you when fido, the faithful and gentle family pet of years, nips the neighbor boy.


once you're on notice, you're required to use reasonable measures to protect the public. if you place the dog in a fenced in yard that doesn't appear to prohibit public access, like expecting the mailman to come in, then you're required to give notice of the hazard within. thus warned, if a person chooses to enter, you are usually insulaed from liability. if you fail to warn, then you're liable to the mailman that you should have known would enter.


localities may add to the restrictions of the law by passing local laws that prohibit the keeping of certain breeds, or requiring all dogs to be muzzled in public. when you violate one of those local laws, you're usually liable as a matter of law.


hope this helps.

 

[stomie]

Loophole - Not getting into specific cases my point is this, trial lawyers have succeeded in fashioning a system whereby people are encouraged not to take any responsibility for their own choices and actions (i.e. the anti-tobacco litigation). They are encouraged to try to find someone else to blame if they suffer any kind of misfortune in life.

 

[djv]

The legal system in this country belong to us. We own it. Thk god not like other countries. Up to us to help control it. How? Right down in the grass roots of the election box. From Sherifs, Judges, DA's and up.

 

[Mjolnir]

i think i will post a sign that say's i have a large black dog, hiv positive, bi-polar disorder, who has been known to lick himself and sniff crotches. he may bite . i wonder if that will protect me from lawsuit?
:thefinger

 

[gardenweasel]

djv

djv

we don`t own it....judges(who were lawyers) and lawyers own it....believe it...

 

[THE KOD]

I got a sign up on my property that says,

This is private property and totally fenced in.

If you are reading this my dog is somewhere close.

Your fawking arm, leg, and ass chewed is all I can say.

If you scream real loud I will try to come down and get him
off you before you bleed to death.


KOD

 

[Eddie Haskell]

What Loop said. Loop do you want to take care of these sensationalists or do you want me to take care of them. Frankly, I've tried to set the record straight but many of our internet friends would rather cling to popular anti-lawyer/legal system beliefs than hear the truth.

Stomie appears to have an agenda. We know the weasel has one. Loop their yours. I unleash you. Sic em.

Eddie

P.S. I can't help it. Stomie if your dog bites someone don't you as the owner think you oughta take some responsibility for it?

 

[stomie]

Eddie maybe you missed my last sentence - They (Americans) are encouraged to try to find someone else to blame if they suffer any kind of misfortune in life.

No agenda just healthy debate.

 

[djv]

Garden we own it. We place many in there jobs. And at trial we have the final say. Right or Wrong. We are the ones who sit on the juries.

 

[Captain Crunch]

Re: djv

Re: djv

we don`t own it....judges(who were lawyers) and lawyers own it....believe it...

Sad but true.

DJV, you might be right at jury trials, but when the judge is the only one listening to a case and making a ruling, it is more a popularity contest between the lawyers. I'm not going to get into a big discussion about what happened to me, but its who you know, not what you know, and you need to have WHO sittin at your side of the table.

No disrespect to Loop or Eddie, but if everyone out there thinks that there isn't some sort of shenanigans carried out behind closed doors, they are sadly mistaken.

 

[AR182]

stormie quote:"Loophole - Not getting into specific cases my point is this, trial lawyers have succeeded in fashioning a system whereby people are encouraged not to take any responsibility for their own choices and actions (i.e. the anti-tobacco litigation)."


wasn't the tobacco companies found to put in an ingredient in their tobacco to make it addictive ?

if that's the case, then they deserve all of the litigation they get, for cheating, if you will.

 

[gardenweasel]

ar1

ar1

the only problem is,that in class action lawsuits like the tobacco case or the asbestos case,lawyers like peter angelos get millions and the poor stupid suckers that are smoking their camels through asophogeal tubes get crumbs...

lawyers giving political donations to judges presiding over large class action lawsuits.....all kinds of little "fox in the henhouse" tidbits that the average joe is unaware of...

please...spare me...

take a gander at walter k. olson`s book,"The Rule of Lawyers"......very interesting stuff....

i have nothing personal against lawyers....but the system is rigged so they can make ridiculous fees....the system is set up so they get a piece of every pie....

you think the oil companies have a monopoly?.....you think that`s unfair?.....it`s peanuts when compared to the ponzi game that lawyers,judges and their cohorts have going on....

tax reform...lol....tort reform....lmao...

don`t hold your breath,gents...

 

[Marco]

Not that this really relates to the initial course of the thread....

A friend of mine had a real moody dog......like the first time I approached it, I walked up to it and it was at the end of its chain, tail wagging and all friendly.......then I got to the point where I could almost pet his head and the dog turned into Cujo in like one second.......barking and snarling at me......my initial reaction was to jump back......Christ, I didn't wan't to be its next meal....

Needless to say I didn't try to pet it again......I didn't trust that dog much......think it was a dane or dalmation type....

My friend lives a mile or so out in the country and along a busy highway......one day the dog got loose and traveled down the long lane to the highway.....dog got struck by traffic and killed....

I heard the story a few days later......he talked about the dog getting hit and apparently the driver didn't stop......I don't think he saw it happen......but the more he talked and ranted about the dog and the hit and run and blah, blah, blah....

......I was getting the impression from him that he felt like the dog had the right of way and this scumbag driver as he called him, should have been prosecuted like he just ran over some child in the crosswalk.....

I didn't tell him anything at the time of all this, but I was thinking that he was lucky that dog didn't wander off somewhere and take a serious chunk out of someone on thier own property......try winning that lawsuit in court when somebody's kid gets mauled in a neighbor's backyard by a dog that was off its leash.....

Like the video footage of that woman who was attacked by a rottweiler on public property.......I got nothing against pets but when something like this happens.....had I been the one attacked......well, let's just say that dog would have been incredibly dead whether it was pulled off me or not.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree if the tobbaco companies taited products they got what they deserved--however there are just causes and frivilous suits.
---and I think they are finally waking up on how to fight the frivilous ones as Boies, son of Al Gore's lawyer in the litigation over the 2000 presidential election just found out.

"Boies, like many other personal injury lawyers, may not be daunted by the lack of facts in his favor and may try to simply scare alcohol companies into making lucrative settlements rather than taking their chances with juries who may be sympathetic to the victims of underage drinkers.

This strategy probably won't work with at least one of the defendants.

Earlier this month Coors responded to one of these lawsuits with a letter to the plaintiffs' lawyer putting him on notice to either withdraw the lawsuit or face a motion for sanctions ? fines judges can impose for bringing frivolous litigation. Sympathizing with the family of the underage drinker, Coors pointed out that their 19-year-old son lost his life because of his own series of bad decisions: to break the law against underage drinking; to drink to excess; to drive without a valid permit; and, reportedly, to "shatter the speed limit" before losing control and striking a light pole.

"His personal responsibility for his own choices does not evaporate because Coors sponsored sporting events that [the underage drinker] attended years earlier," Coors letter said.

Faced with this determined defense ? and unassailable logic ? the plaintiffs' lawyer immediately dismissed his lawsuit against Coors "with prejudice," meaning it can't be re-filed.

It may take longer to penetrate the class-action allegations in some similar lawsuits, but eventually they all will boil down to teenagers who know perfectly well they are breaking the law and lawyers who are looking for someone else to blame ... and to pay."

 

[loophole]

dogs, i assume you're referring to the pisco lawsuit against coors in nevada. where did you hear that the case had been dismissed? i would find that surprising, since the suit was filed barely a month ago, and no plaintiff's lawyer with a pulse would need to be reminded that every court in the land has the power to issue sanctions for frivolous litigation. btw, the case has no chance at success.


as for the tobacco litigation, most people think that it's based on the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, which most of it is not. the most meaningful tobacco liabilty cases are based on these facts, all proven with tobacco's own paper trail:

1. the tobacco companies researched the issue of cancer causation long before anyone else, and were told by their own researchers that there was most likely a causal link between smoking and cancer.

2. armed with this knowledge, the big four tbacco companies not only suppressed the research results, but continued to deny there was any such causal connection.

3. at the same time, their research also identified nicotine as the addictive agent in tobacco and, while knowing about and denying the cancer link, they undertook a process of injecting additional nicotine into their cigarette tobacco in order to make them more addictive, and thus increase sales.



isn't it outrageous they might be held accountable for such acts?



gardenweasel, you must have had a terrible experience in court to irrationally hate lawyers the way you do. you otherwise seem like a fairly intelligent guy. about the only thing i've seen you write that i can agree with is that there are some awful abuses going on in the area of class action lawsuits. are there corrupt lawyers? of course there are. there are also corrupt doctors, banks, stock brokers, insurance companies, cops, you name it. that doesn't mean that every human being in the system is corrupt. the level of your vitriole is unbalanced, to say the least.


my original post in this thread was to call attention to the fact that stomie's first post was simply a misstatement of the law. as i suspected, no one here really cares about the inaccuracy as long as it presents another opportunity to lawyer-bash. i'm sure all of you anti-lawyer types,when, god forbid, you or anyone dear to you should ever be arrested and charged with an offense, will be sure to forego legal representation and rush into court and take responsibilty for whatever wrong the agents of the state allege.

 

[djv]

Loop it is funny or maybe not. But when a lawyer is needed by someone. It's there best friend at that point. Our lifes and the way government can make them. Almost assures us all a lawyer will be of need once or twice. Our companies and the health care system is next in line with the insurance industry. That will see we need a lawyer at least another time. All I can say to all here is. See to it you get very good advise to protect all that you have gain through out life by seeing a lawyer. I throught I had it all coverd well with self help books and some info from TV shows and this the net. Then I reitired and said time to see a lawyer and see where im at. That was the best 450 bucks I ever spent. Dam I was not even close to haveing things coverd. For sure what the State and US government would have stolen away. I should have payed the guy $1000.