Originally Posted by Janq
That's where I think you may be wrong. As you know, there are different levels of negligence......simple, gross, criminal as examples. The one thing that they all have in common is that in order for an action to be deemed negligent the defendent has to be shown to have "failed to use reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to a person, place, or thing."
No doubt Mr Kuh is at risk here, but I'm sure his attorney will argue that the shooting was not a foreseeable consequence of the chase.
Like you, I'd still like to hear an opinion from one of the lawyers out there.......heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
I love what the plaintiff's attorney said "It's never acceptable to put people in danger in order to recover money...". I wonder if he's on a contingency fee? I bet not.
Good guy loses again.
MR D said it all. The BGs didn't have any money of their own so the store owner gets screwed. Sometime life isn't fair. The only one who made out was the lawyer.:mad:
Originally Posted by MR D
Yet another example and case of 'Proximate Cause'...
I think there is a huge difference between someone doing something that is legal, ie, following a BG, (we still do not know that speed they were traveling), and someone who is doing something illegal, ie dealing drugs out of ones home, when it comes to what can be ruled as the contributing factor.
It is reasonable to expect if your dealing drugs that someone will want those drugs and use deadly force or other means to get them thereby putting others who inhabit your home where the illegal drugs are in danger. It is not reasonable to expect that a BG being followed will shoot an innocent person.
But I guess we will have to see how this particular case comes out and if the estates suit is successful. The jury may not agree with me and what is reasonable, but then again, they might, will have to see.
And a second comes up in todays news.
Only in this case the victim gave chase and wrecked his car into an innocent third party injuring that person as a result.
The stories and background are different but the concept of proximate cause remains same toward both