In a message dated 8/26/2007 3:55:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
The problem that I have with this case is that because the plaintiff took it
upon himself to construct the scaffolding himself, and he built it
incorrectly, the defendants get off scott free.
It does not seem fair that the defendants will be rewarded for not doing
their job (providing proper and safe equipment).
I am trying to think of an anology that we can discuss that applies to this
case. How about this one:
Students need safety scissors in their classroom and the school district did
not supply them. The teacher finally goes out and buys safety scissors.
These safety scissors, unbeknowst to the teacher, are too long. A student gets
hurt. Who is at fault?
Sorry but this is such a bad analogy. Children are not licensed carpenters
who know, or should know, how to build a safe scaffold nor do they work for
Here's what I think would be a better analogy.
A customer at a supermarket situated on property owned by ABC Land
Development accidentally drops a bottle of Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice. Management is
immediately notified. A private janitorial company is summoned to clean it
up but does a very, very poor job. Another customer slips and falls on the
poorly cleaned area and is severeloy injured.
Would you hold either ABC or Ocean Spray responsible? How about the
supermarket? How about the janitorial service company?
I can personally see the supermarket going down for a portion and the
janitorial company going down for a much larger portion with Ocean Spray and ABC
being dismissed upon entry of summary judgment.
Just my quick thoughts.
Sarkis Detective Agency
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
"one Nation under God"
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
a military veteran !
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]