Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] development

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/26/2007 3:55:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Jurydoctor@aol.com writes: The problem that I have with this case is that because the
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/26/2007 3:55:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
      Jurydoctor@... writes:

      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
      their brother.

      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.



      Sincerely yours,
      Sue
      ________________________
      Sue Sarkis
      Sarkis Detective Agency


      (est. 1976)
      PI 6564
      _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

      1346 Ethel Street
      Glendale, CA 91207-1826
      818-242-2505
      818-242-9824 FAX

      "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
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.