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

Re: [infoguys-list] drinking on the rocks - Am I misreading something here

Expand Messages
  • Bob Hrodey
    ... I agree under THOSE circumstances, Bill, however in the original post, one of the choices was DUI motorist or words to that effect. I know it s an
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 2, 2005
      on 11/2/2005 1:25 PM oracleintl@... said the following:

      > 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
      > hasten
      > 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
      > would
      > 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
      > boulders,
      > 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
      > because
      > 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.

      I agree under THOSE circumstances, Bill, however in the original post,
      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.