It was the wrong thread

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

You mean in the subsequent defamation suit?

I do look forward to the day that the subsequent defamation suit reaches the Supreme Court, and a distinguished attorney rises to explain Fark.com to the befuddled justices.

If I were that guy's insurance company, I'd be a little trepidatious about a tribunal that would take judicial notice of the existence of Gilbert Gottfried, much less the content of the YouTube videos of the Comedy Central Roasts.

[Hank Chinaski]

so my own reading of fringey's progress has been in parallel with the city i work in making it be more dangerous to be a pedestrian.

right outside my office is a busy intersection. decades ago the decision was made to put a ped safety island in to break up crossing in one direction, such that right turning cars are forced to see peds.

a city planner a year or so ago decided that we need more green space and they eliminated the safety island. right turning cars whip around the corner, and even someone like me, with knowledge of the problem, almost gets hit every week or so. a first timer will get nailed sooner or later (hi adder!).

so my question is- can a city be sued for boneheaded changes to it roads- assume the city itself decided to make the safety island in the first place, but the decision makers are all dead now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so my own reading of fringey's progress has been in parallel with the city i work in making it be more dangerous to be a pedestrian.

right outside my office is a busy intersection. decades ago the decision was made to put a ped safety island in to break up crossing in one direction, such that right turning cars are forced to see peds.

a city planner a year or so ago decided that we need more green space and they eliminated the safety island. right turning cars whip around the corner, and even someone like me, with knowledge of the problem, almost gets hit every week or so. a first timer will get nailed sooner or later (hi adder!).

so my question is- can a city be sued for boneheaded changes to it roads- assume the city itself decided to make the safety island in the first place, but the decision makers are all dead now.

Yes. I've been involved in successfully doing it. You need a few engineers and planners and it's boring as fuck, but if some element was improperly designed, barring any statutory immunities, negligent design or manufacturing theories apply.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yes. I've been involved in successfully doing it. You need a few engineers and planners and it's boring as fuck, but if some element was improperly designed, barring any statutory immunities, negligent design or manufacturing theories apply.

are there generally municipal immunity statutes? say in Pa.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so my own reading of fringey's progress has been in parallel with the city i work in making it be more dangerous to be a pedestrian.

right outside my office is a busy intersection. decades ago the decision was made to put a ped safety island in to break up crossing in one direction, such that right turning cars are forced to see peds.

a city planner a year or so ago decided that we need more green space and they eliminated the safety island. right turning cars whip around the corner, and even someone like me, with knowledge of the problem, almost gets hit every week or so. a first timer will get nailed sooner or later (hi adder!).

so my question is- can a city be sued for boneheaded changes to it roads- assume the city itself decided to make the safety island in the first place, but the decision makers are all dead now.

You have a public entity liability question and you go to Sebby? I'm hurt.

The full credit answer would take pages and even I would find it boring, but I'll try to kick it into a nutshell:

You start with sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is probably built into the state constitution. Then, because state legislatures are made up of trial lawyers who would have starved if it were only that easy, you look for a waiver statute. It will say "No public entity or official shall be liable for a dangerous condition of public property unless . . . want of care, etc." It will look like an immunity statute but is actually the only basis for liability because governments are not liable in tort ("I'm a SHAAARK! Suck my dick! I'm a SHAAARK!") but can be liable pursuant to a statute. So if you can plead your way into a government claim, you're in court.

But wait, you're not done; some states (California {cough}) have something called Design Immunity, which says that if a public entity made a decision to have a project designed in a particular way, it is assumed that it weighed the benefits, risks, and costs with the public's overall interest in mind, and a court cannot declare it negligent for a city to have installed a 3 ft. barrier wall just because a retained engineer would testify that a 7 ft. wall that would have been uglier and cost four times more would have prevented the individual plaintiff from being decapitated. This is what we in the public entity biz call the "can't make an omelette without decapitating some pedestrians" rule. This particular immunity only extends to injuries caused by a conscious decision to design the project in a particular way, and does not cover failure to maintain, etc. Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You have a public entity liability question and you go to Sebby? I'm hurt.

The full credit answer would take pages and even I would find it boring, but I'll try to kick it into a nutshell:

You start with sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is probably built into the state constitution. Then, because state legislatures are made up of trial lawyers who would have starved if it were only that easy, you look for a waiver statute. It will say "No public entity or official shall be liable for a dangerous condition of public property unless . . . want of care, etc." It will look like an immunity statute but is actually the only basis for liability because governments are not liable in tort ("I'm a SHAAARK! Suck my dick! I'm a SHAAARK!") but can be liable pursuant to a statute. So if you can plead your way into a government claim, you're in court.

But wait, you're not done; some states (California {cough}) have something called Design Immunity, which says that if a public entity made a decision to have a project designed in a particular way, it is assumed that it weighed the benefits, risks, and costs with the public's overall interest in mind, and a court cannot declare it negligent for a city to have installed a 3 ft. barrier wall just because a retained engineer would testify that a 7 ft. wall that would have been uglier and cost four times more would have prevented the individual plaintiff from being decapitated. This is what we in the public entity biz call the "can't make an omelette without decapitating some pedestrians" rule. This particular immunity only extends to injuries caused by a conscious decision to design the project in a particular way, and does not cover failure to maintain, etc. Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.

1 ididn't go to sebby, he just answered first. ambulence chaser.

2 thank you. if it's me, remember the bacon.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.

This is Michigan we're talking about. Home of the exploding Pinto.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

You have a public entity liability question and you go to Sebby? I'm hurt.

The full credit answer would take pages and even I would find it boring, but I'll try to kick it into a nutshell:

You start with sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is probably built into the state constitution. Then, because state legislatures are made up of trial lawyers who would have starved if it were only that easy, you look for a waiver statute. It will say "No public entity or official shall be liable for a dangerous condition of public property unless . . . want of care, etc." It will look like an immunity statute but is actually the only basis for liability because governments are not liable in tort ("I'm a SHAAARK! Suck my dick! I'm a SHAAARK!") but can be liable pursuant to a statute. So if you can plead your way into a government claim, you're in court.

But wait, you're not done; some states (California {cough}) have something called Design Immunity, which says that if a public entity made a decision to have a project designed in a particular way, it is assumed that it weighed the benefits, risks, and costs with the public's overall interest in mind, and a court cannot declare it negligent for a city to have installed a 3 ft. barrier wall just because a retained engineer would testify that a 7 ft. wall that would have been uglier and cost four times more would have prevented the individual plaintiff from being decapitated. This is what we in the public entity biz call the "can't make an omelette without decapitating some pedestrians" rule. This particular immunity only extends to injuries caused by a conscious decision to design the project in a particular way, and does not cover failure to maintain, etc. Also, your state might believe that 100% of the public fisc should be spent avoiding remote risks of injury, so YMMV.

So, the best option for recourse seems to be, exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and run up on dem crackas in da city hall, yes?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

are there generally municipal immunity statutes? say in Pa.

Not when we did it. But somebody else did that research. It was a faulty road design. Everybody got sued - township, contractor, design firm. I know the local municipality kicked in a load for the settlement, so my guess is whatever immunity they have, it isn't complicated to get around.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not when we did it. But somebody else did that research. It was a faulty road design. Everybody got sued - township, contractor, design firm. I know the local municipality kicked in a load for the settlement, so my guess is whatever immunity they have, it isn't complicated to get around.

Or, the sensibilities of the judges are offended that someone might be injured on public property but it might nonetheless be THE FUCKING FULLY INTENDED OUTCOME OF THE LAW that they have no remedy, and therefore they find "triable issues." Because it takes a special kind of judicial courage to admit that legislatures write laws that are occasionally supposed to apply even when they are injurious to individual interests but beneficial to collective ones. It makes my heart sing to read appellate opinions that say "Plaintiff's argument is best directed to the legislative branch."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Or, the sensibilities of the judges are offended that someone might be injured on public property but it might nonetheless be THE FUCKING FULLY INTENDED OUTCOME OF THE LAW that they have no remedy, and therefore they find "triable issues." Because it takes a special kind of judicial courage to admit that legislatures write laws that are occasionally supposed to apply even when they are injurious to individual interests but beneficial to collective ones. It makes my heart sing to read appellate opinions that say "Plaintiff's argument is best directed to the legislative branch."

I was just following orders. I think my view of most personal injury cases has been pretty well established. Suffice it to say, I'm with you. I remain unaware of any reasonable limit on the concepts of assumption of risk or contributory/comparative negligence, and welcome almost any statutory bars. But that doesn't mean I won't try to make money on one where I can. It'd be crazy not to.

[Replaced_Texan]

Ha!

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Ha!

Classic. And I loved footnote 7:

7The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical
device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence
assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally,
challenged the undersigned to a “round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse
Square,” asserted that the President is not human.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was just following orders. .

That;s the same excuse that Lynndie England used about Abu Ghraib. Not exactly stellar company to be in with that one, my friend. No offence.

[Spanky]

Random question:

How do you get power of attorney from someone outside the US. Do US courts take notarized documents from foreign countries?