Printable View
I know many States have landlord tenant laws that require the landlord to keep doors and intercom systems in good working order. IF they are not in good working order, the landlord can be responsible for the damage or theft of personal property...
This is not a landlord/tenant dispute, but there are some reasonable legal liability questions here... to court they go.
Doesn't make the assumptions reasonable, since assumptions they still remain: determined criminals can make it through darned near anything, including locked gates, locked doors, monitored alarm systems, safes, etc. Though, you're correct in suggesting that a place with statutes requiring maintenance that fails to get done can see its share of lawsuits for negligence in the event of crime occurring.Quote:
Originally Posted by nutz4utwo
IMO, at the end of the day, there's still only a portion of culpability that can exist, there. At the end of the day, the eyes-closed nature of "Silver Spoon's" existence is what got him hit. Not the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janq
I agree.
The HOA didn't live up to their responsibility to provide the security measures for which they were responsible.
Having said that, no one should ever trust such measures as their sole defense against the BG's. To do so is irresponsible in the extreme.
I live in a very nice gated community. In addition we have 24 hour guards on the gate and roving patrols. I still have a monitored alarm system, a dog, a well trained (and armed) family, all of whom have a good sense of awareness of what goes on around us. Paranoid? Nope, just prudent and responsible in my ever so humble opinion. It's a shame that the individual reported in the OP didn't feel the same way....... :hand5:
I cant help but think "Hot Coffee is Hot"
My ex lived in a gated complex after we split. All it takes is for one questionable family to move in, then the little gang kids open the gate for their friends, and stuff starts getting stolen. Her storage room was cleaned out, along with the car.
Just as an FYI...Quote:
Originally Posted by InspectorGadget
Contrary to common thought and misconception toward the McDonalds case, the coffee was not served hot...It was served scalding (!).
Further there had been very many other events of exact same which had been quieted by McDonalds through settlements.
In fact in this case the plaintiff had not wanted to sue at all but just asked for coverage of her medical expenses which repeatedly McDonalds refused. So with no other options available she did what any reasonable person would and should do, she sued.
Look into the facts of that case and you might be surprised at what you find, above and beyond what was featured as a dismissive item amongst the media.
If I had been that woman whos coffee literally melted her vaginal area skin I too would have sued.
This case commonly comes up as being an example of a frivolous lawsuit when in fact it was anything but frivolous, and McDonalds was in fact very much wrong and at fault...and operating as a policy outside of food service industry norms.
Coffee is supposed to be hot, not scalding hot to the point that it melts human skin.
Reading points...
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The MCDONALDS Coffee Cup Case--- Separating The McFACTS From The McFICTION
The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
- Janq
"McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."
Source - Austin Medical Malpractice Lawsuits - Ryan Krebs, M.D, J.D. - McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case
Gated communities are a joke in these parts (Phoenix area) with regard to security. I don't know of a single one in the East Valley that actually has a live human at the gate for even a fraction of a day; and most leave the gates open for an hour or more at the beginning and end of the day to accommodate commuters. Add to that multiple sublets and non-owner occupied homes, and all of a sudden the "gated" part doesn't mean squat with respect to security.
I lived in a gated community..... South Shore Harbor League City, TX. I was jumped, stabbed in the gut and upper thigh. ON the golf course (16th hole) when I was 15yrs old. I know first hand gated communities are a farse for keeping crime out. Also have carried some type of weapon since then.
A point of clarification.Quote:
Coffee is supposed to be hot, not scalding hot to the point that it melts human skin.
Coffee should be made at temperatures best-suited to making coffee. This temperature is just below boiling to a bit below that.
Like most foods, time and temperature do specific things to the food. With coffee bean oils, you don't get the same things happening at 130-140*F as you do at 190-200*F, with many of them as high as ~205*F or so. (Look at any decent espresso brewing machine and you'll find them all near this range. Check the standard temperature ranges for the store-grade Bunn or other typical manufacturers' machines.)
If you don't brew coffee properly, the oils don't do what coffee bean oils should do ... and you get poor coffee. It's that simple. That's why industry brewing standards are what they are. That isn't criminal, because granny couldn't hold onto it. That isn't criminal because a jury could be swayed into believing that one has no responsibility to be cautious around, or culpability when failing to be cautious around, such hot items.
McD's had every right and incentive to making it in such a manner.
Coffee should be presumed to be hot and basically tested prior to consuming or dumping on crotches. So should pizza, as the sauce is bubbling right out of the oven. So should any Campbell's soup that's been heated in a pot on the stove. Hell, any child knows this.
Coffee IS hot that is prepared in the proper and generally-accepted manner. Any coffee zapped in my nuker at home is hot, way too hot to drink at that moment without an ice cube or 5mins waiting, and certainly too hot to dump on my skin while I contemplate how hot "hot" is. I know this. Nine of 10 folks on my street will know this. It's common knowledge: coffee is hot, initially generally too hot to drink, and certainly too hot to boil your crotch without a care.
Anyone can accidentally dump a liquid onto the skin. But you get what you get, if you choose to do that with food items known to be very hot, accepted by standard industry practice and the simple nature of the food item itself as to nearly require preparation at that temperature. It's also fair to say that, in terms of culpability (given the fact that what the customer purchased WAS a hot food), the greatest contributing factor was the lack of care shown by the dumper of the food, not the acceptable and reasonable temperature of it.
When you get your car from the quickie oil-change dudes, it's still hot. Too hot to put your tongue on the valve cover.
When you get your pizza from Joe, at the shop that advertises "bubbly-hot" cheese, it's too hot to eat at that instant, at least without precautions.
When you get your coffee from McD's or anywhere that attempts to brew it at the proper temperature, or anywhere above tepid (for coffee drinkers), you're going to have a good number of people thinking it's too darned hot to drink at that instant.
This customer DID get laughed at, in the media, and she's become a cautionary tale for American knee-jerk stupidity of consumers and lawsuit-itis. For good reason, IMO. YMMV.
Back to our regularly-scheduled program (the point of the OP): gates aren't a barrier; they're merely a deterrent, and not very much of one at that. That's also common knowledge, though condition-white-heads choose to ignore the truth of it. Their loss.
Only if the fixing of the gate is negligently avoided or ignored. We don't have the facts in this case, so it's hard to tell. The mere fact the gate broke two seconds ago doesn't make the HOA or any given citizen in that community automatically negligent and "in breach" the next second. Doesn't work that way. Particularly since we're speaking of mechanical devices that are known to fail, since they're made by man. The claim that it had been broken/inoperable for 30 days? Were they awaiting parts, or scheduling of the repair, or ...? Don't know. Any breach would have to come after a suitable period of time during which any attempt to fix would almost certainly succeed.Quote:
But the bottom line is that [gates] either state or imply security by way of being guarded and/or gated at their entry/exit points. To have a non-functional gate is effectively breach of contract ...
Anyway. Thank you for the post, DaveH. The bulk of the jumping on the crybaby's back was for his lack of understanding about how little of a deterrent gates and other such items really are. As several have pointed out, gates (in a gated community) are probably more effective at being beacons of wealth instead of deterrents to criminals. But one shouldn't have to think very hard to realize that the world is simple from the criminal's perspective.
"Those people" account for a large majority of America's population, and I tend to think it's modeled and taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bark'n
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
As an Employee of the Electric Company for 36 years (now retired) I'd like to state that locks are for honest people. They are a minor inconvience for BG's.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to enter a Gated Community and found it always took very little effort. As usual, most calls I made inside the GC meant, the Complaintant( Customer) was not home. No problem, even without the gate code or someone to let me in.
As for fence gates, they are mounted with wood screws or bolts, so a socket on a cordless drill and I'm inside the back yard in mere seconds.
Legally I could do this because of the Citys policy of Power of Egress given to the EC Employees through our Charter. We have every right to access of our equipment. You'd be surprised how many Sheeple in the GC's would raise hell at us for trying to restoring power to their neighborhood in their yard. My God folks where do you think electricity comes from???? Many times I've heard, can't you fix that out at the street?
All that to say this, "Gated Communities are nothing more than Crook Magnets. The sad part is, the BG's know that few are going to call in a suspicous person report cause surely the Gate at the front would deter the BG's. :haha:
In the original post, the HOA had ample time to repair the (Cough) security measures. Proving they did not do so in a timely manner will mean the guy wins his case. After all the Jury will be full of Gated Community dwellers. And some of them can be very generous with OPM. (Other Peoples Money)
Like already mentioned, he should have armed himself. That or request the BG wait intil the Popo could get there before the BG pulled the trigger and shot him.
Maybe his HOA didn't allow weapons inside the Community Walls. Then they're screwed! Stranger restrictions exhist inside those little Compounds. Course he may have signed an document of agreement of Non Libel when he moved in!
We have a HOA here where I live. (Home Owners Armed) No fees! I watch my neighbors house and they watch mine. We all carry, including my single neighbor lady next door. But we don't have a gate at the entry, we have Dobermans and a Jackass, he always brays at strange vehicles. Country life, you can't beat it. We can even dove hunt in our back yards!
Curt58
Sorry, I tend to ramble.
I'm retired after all!!!!!!:danceban:
'Nuff said, Curt. :congrats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt58
Hm. I could learn something from that model of brevity. :embarassed:
Just wanted to stick up for HOAs. Yes some can be bad and overzealous but they are often necessary.
I live in an HOA neighborhood and I'm on the Board of Directors. We have:
Homes: 5,800
Lakes: 100
Trails: 21+ miles
Residents: 20,000+-
Budget $2.1 Million
In an area this size an HOA is a necessity. Just cutting the grass in the common areas is a 365 day a year job. There is a lot that has to happen to keep the common areas looking nice, keep the property values up and to protect the image that this is a good place to live. It is a small city in size and as such it requires a lot of work to keep the infrastructure up and running smoothly.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkh
In any community with shared assets, some control and management of those things needs to be done in the best interests of everyone, else the Tragedy of the Commons and other sicknesses comes into play. Anyone with any time in an HOA knows how insidious these things can be.
I, too, am in an HOA. We're a group of 12, homes separately standing with some common ground and a fenced area all around. Legally, the shared property is logged under "condominium" status, though the "units" are all stand-alone just like homes. An interesting mix. Of course, what's not interesting is how direct it gets in order to pay for the shared services. Even with a small group of a dozen folks, the shared expenses are quite a bit. Thse include the long-term savings required in order to cover painting, fixing of concrete walkways, the sprinkler system, and so on. We just covered the exterior painting of everything. There were a few zeros on the end of the check we wrote to cover it, as nobody had painting skills (let alone the time to get it done before the rains came on).
None of that's cheap, when it covers acres. It's a fair cost, indeed, when not seeded with $millions to begin with.
Anyway, for a person on the edge of an assisted-living facility, in terms of what I'm able to get done in the yard and facilities myself, I appreciate the benefits of an HOA. Having also been on the board (and likely doing so at some point soon, as well), I appreciate the pros/cons. A necessary evil, some might say. Though, I can say with perfect sincerity that it darned well runs honestly and reasonably when I'm on the board and paying attention, than when I'm consumed by other things (life, and whatnot).
Very much so! When I was growing up it was the person starting a fight that was punished, not the one protecting them self. Even in the schools it was this way. Now its totally backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Random
Michael