Blaming the victim for thief's injury unfair

[GuyJR]

Sad state of affairs - that's why I'm glad that I live down here - where I can shoot a guy who invades my home - where I can kick the crap out of someone trying to steal my property and I can call the president a jerk out loud - that's what you get when you let the liberals run the show -

Is America not the land of the ridiculous lawsuits? With whats going on in your country right now I would be embarrassed to live there.

[Rugger]

Devils advocate says this is the same for lots of other situations.

What if the drunk kids walked across the street to the neighbor who has a pool but the gate is open and one of the kids falls in and drowns.... Pool owner is at fault for not securing the pool.

What if the two drunk kids went to another friend's house and friend's mom had been cleaning her firearm when they came over, she leaves it out by accident and one of the kids shoots the other. Firearm not secured; fault, firearm owner.

What I think is ridiculous is that the garage owner was judged to be 4% more liable than the mother who fed them alcohol. How does that math work? Did the judge forget to carry a brain fart? lol

[fratri]

I think it is sad that the owner of the garage is held responsible in any way. This is just silly.

[JBen]

Waftrudnir;unreal:
“It isa matter of common sense that minors might harm themselves in joyriding,especially if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury decision that foundRankin’s Garage 37% liable for any damages ..., the thief himself is liablefor 23%, and the injured passenger assumes only 10% liability.

that also means you are at fault if it is reasonable to believe you could have gotten out of the way if some prick races down the 401 and runs into you! well, anyone who spent some time there would know that emergency lanes are frequently used as race lanes and that a few guys will just do over 130 in traffic that moves below 80. so it's your own fault if you happen to be around when someone breaks the rules and causes damage, right
***********************

Yep, and I'll go you one further. It also means that when its 10pm and dark, and some guy runs out into an intersection against a red light and you smoke him, your in a world of trouble. The way the law works is here in vehicle pedestrian collisions the driver is 100% guilty (liable) until proven innocent.......

Luckily
I had an on duty cop witness the whole thing and a ton of physical forensic evidence.
The scum sucking ambulance chasing law firm "Pace" said the guy was enjoying a walk when out of nowhere I negligently and recklessly plowed into him.

Well despite the cop who saw it all, and would testify the guy was running, and into a red light.
~The dent in my right front quarter panel slightly above and behind the wheel clearly showed/proved point of impact. He ran into me.

~The dent on my hood and blood on my windshield proved forward momentum. Had he been walking as claimed the laws of physics demand that in car vs human..........

~Where he landed also proved somethings. Where my vehicle came to stop proved somethings, and so on..

100% guilty and liable. Then the lawyers start arguing.
"He ran into a red light" my guy ( the driver) is only 50% liable
"At night, no reflective clothing" My guy is only 25% liable
"On duty cop witnessed everything" no charges, no nada.my guy is only 10% liable
And so on

My insurance Co offered them some blood money to go away

Their reply
"not good enough, do you like your chances in court"
Courts expensive and who know's what some bleeding heart judge might decide. Even though your client wasn't speeding, he could have driven slower.

My Insurance Co
"lets cave, give them more"
******

Alternate universe: What if he had been a slightly faster runner so the point of impact was the front of the car (and not the side) and no on duty cop to witness it all ( what are the odds of that?)......

100% guilty until proven innocent