Tuesday, August 16, 2005

This is so wrong!

First, we should have a Constitutional Amendment that no lawyer could ever become a judge! From this Free Republic posting:
A Burger King patron in Rockford, Ill., backs her car into a lamppost in the parking lot and then panics. She puts her car into drive and puts the pedal to the metal. She quickly loses control of her vehicle, which jumps the sidewalk and flies through a plate-glass window, striking and fatally injuring a patron.

Who was negligent in this freak accident? The driver? Or the deep-pockets restaurant, for improperly designing and constructing its building and sidewalk and for not installing protective barriers around the building?

If you said the latter, you should enroll in law school, if you aren't already a trial lawyer.

The dead patron's estate sued the restaurant chain for millions for "designing the building to be bricked up only a few feet from the ground, when the defendant(s) knew or should have known that ... may allow a vehicle from the parking lot to drive into the building, and crash through the glass on top of the brick."

The trial judge reasonably dismissed the suit, concluding the "likelihood of this scenario is so minor that to guard against it in the manner suggested would require fortifying every building within striking distance of any crazed or incredibly inept driver."

Stunningly, the dismissal was reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court, which said Burger King must safeguard its patrons from all possible accidents, no matter how improbable.

Read the whole thing. One commenter suggest the Bard had it right (third quote down). Another offered this link to the full decision and dissent.

Technorati : , , , , , , , ,