Re: [infoguys-list] drinking on the rocks - Am I misreading something here
- on 11/2/2005 1:25 PM oracleintl@... said the following:
>I agree under THOSE circumstances, Bill, however in the original post,
> In a message dated 11/2/2005 12:11:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> paladinpi@... writes:
> I would put 100% of the blame on the sot who drank and drive.
> Realistically though in our liberal litigatious society and the
> innane laws
> that have sprouted up to shift blame from the idiots of the world, it'll
> probably be deemed that the homeowners were in some way responsible. I
> couldn't set a % though as other factors come into play:
> Well Sir Brian, Knight of Charlemagne's Court, bring thy lance and
> thee to the fair grounds.
> According to my understanding of the situation, all we know is that the
> person had consumed some alcohol but not enough to be legally
> intoxicated. I may
> have misread it and I don't have time to go find it at the moment, but
> if I
> am wrong on that point, I'll concede the argument.
> Having just met a friend for lunch, and having just had a beer with
> lunch as
> I almost always do, and having driven myself home as is perfectly
> legal to
> do, it would not seem to me that if I had an accident getting here, it
> have been 100% my fault - or even any percent my fault necessarily.
> Now, had I strayed slightly from the road -- say to avoid a dog or a
> child -
> and run up on some freakin boulder that some idiot home owner had put
> in the
> right of way, where it is absolutely illegal for homeowners to put
> I suspect that my car would have been damaged pretty severely as it sits
> pretty low to the road and was not made with 4-wheeling in mind.
> Now I admit I may have not got the facts right, and I probably should go
> back and take a look, but if a person doing a legal thing is injured
> some fool did a completely illegal thing, it seems asinine to suggest
> that the
> law is inane because it would serve to hold responsible the homeowner
> who acted
> unlawfully - litigious society or not.
one of the choices was "DUI motorist" or words to that effect. I know
it's an assumption but you cannot fault me for it since nowhere in the
post did it state he WAS NOT drunk, but when I read "DUI motorist" or
words to that effect, I will assume that the writer is making a factual
statement, i.e. the person is legally impaired.
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
email: inquiry@... or rth@...
Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063