by Askias » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:34 pm
Note: not a lawyer. Yet. And studying in Europe, specifically the Netherlands, with a very different civil law system. Do not and never take my word for anything. Correction is encouraged.
The first one is still something that boils my blood. I wouldn't even be so angry if the defense had sticked with ''He's 16, and they're idiots, and idiotic behavior had a worse consequence in this case than most.''. Not a excuse for four counts of negligent homocide, but one I'd expect to be brought out in this case and given a token ''Yeah but no'' dismissal. The inclusion of ''Well his parents were also terrible at parenting''... The mere idea is annoying, but defense lawyers do stuff like that, it's their job. The fact that this defense was accepted by a judge just fries a few fuses in my head. In case you forgot, your honor, you're supposed to uphold the law, and the law is fairly goddamn clear on quadrupple homocide. I have been to court as a spectator several times. I've seen people convicted on petty theft who came from backgrounds that would make this kid wet his pants, but that was no defense. Poor parenting is now a legal defense, but only for the rich.
Urg. I'll boil down the reasoning as I see it for non-lawyer though, since you asked. It is an accepted legal defense to prove that the person was in no state to consider the consequences of the actions taken. This is most commonly seen in arguing the defendant is a minor, and thus unable to think far enough ahead. As such, the person can't be said to have knowingly commited a criminal act. In this case, it was accepted that the extreme poor parenting left the accused in a state that, although he was of legal age, for all intents and purposes he couldn't be expected to think his actions through. As such, instead of punishing him, he was enlisted in mental care. Why did this consist of a 450,000 dollar per year facility? Because the USA legal system is fucked, I have no other explanation. Maybe a US citizen can clear that up, I'm on the same side of the pond as you.
I am still trying to untie the strings in #4. The case is someone who jumped in front of a train suing the train company. Yes, it is completely true that if you've been negligent, negligence of the other party is not a clear-all excuse. But I thought it well-established legal practise that in such a case you look at how bad negligence has been on both sides. One side lacked rails. The other jumped in front of a speeding train. A little perspective here.
But the reasoning again: If you've been negligent, you are responsible for the consequences thereof. You are not only held to take preclautions for completely reasonable people. You must also consider that a big part of the population is dumber than average and they might also walk in your station. So purely saying ''Well a smarter person would've known not to do X'' doesn't get you off the hook completely. In my own country that would lead to a percentile spread: Your negligence is for x% the cause of the trauma, the remaining Y% is the injured. So you must pay x% of the costs resulting (medical or otherwise). Given that ''jumping in front of a train'' seems to be 99% responsible for the result, I am baffled with the size of the verdict.
#3. Kids sued for bringing around cookies. Painful as it is to say, I see the point. Both girls were over 18, meaning they were responsible for their actions. Walking around at 10:30 PM to visit strangers isn't smart. In this case, the stars aligned and the consequences were much more severe than foreseeable, but that isn't a foolproof excuse. The lady in question seems to be rather insufferable though: she didn't just sue for medical bills, but also for pain and suffering, which is presumably why she chose to take the case to court after being offered to have her medical bills repaid (this wasn't mentioned in the article but I fished it from the source).
Reasoning... They're adults. Sneaking around late can cause people to panic, they should know that. So when their actions caused a panic attack (which the court decided they did), they were responsible for the costs thereof.
#2. I am hestitant to judge here. She was 'injured', I do not know how severe. I know the USA medical system can be a clusterfuck of bills. If the choice was between being a complete asshole and being financially ruined... I am aware I am adding details in her favor, but I don't know the case and I was already aware the american civil lawsuits are a class of their own in dickishness, so I wouldn't need that confirmed.
On a sidenote, my local paper reported on a truck driver who ended up in significant debt because someone killed himself by driving against his truck on the freeway at very high speed. Besides the trauma, his truck was wrecked. He ended up about 40.000 euros in debt because he was unwilling to sue the grieving family, who were in principle the only one he could sue. He said ''He couldn't do that''. American civil lawyers, take note and salute. PS, his sotry inspired a fundraiser which netted him 75.000 euros from the moved public. He is out of debt now.
Reasoning... If we count the 18-year old man's sudden death as an accident of his own doing, he can be held accountable for all resulting actions, including this one. I chalk this up to ''It sounds insane, but otherwise an innocent can be settled with a burden by accident without anyone to hold accountable''. In this case one might say ''Well so what?'', but that isn't how accountability works, and it's not too difficult to imagine situations where accidental damage could ruin people.
#1 (sperm stealing)... Just read the article. I can't fault the Judge in this case, because the law is clear that the parent is responsible for the child. The child is not at fault in this case. However, I wholeheartly suggest the lady take a very long walk off a very short pier.
Reasoning: Regardless of how the child was conceived, the father is responsible for the child's situation. By law, period. Bad as the lady's actions were, the lawmakers placed the child's needs first. There is no law the lady broke either, besides all rules of decency, so the court was fairly powerless.
PS. Post is on the moment, made by practically a layman from a different country with no research to speak of besides following some links in the article. No garuntees on accuracy is what I'm saying, alright?
If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)