This seems reasonable to me. A fellow was driving in a Wal Mart Parking Lot. He drove front in first into a light standard – going fast enough to do $3000 damage to his 12 year old pickup truck. Obviously it is Wal-Mart's fault for having those pesky standards in their parking lot right where you can slam head first into them.
This reminds me of the story of the fellow who had stopped beside the road to make a phone call at a phone booth. (This was in the dark ages when phone booths actually existed.) A drunk driver veered off the road and hit the phone booth, injuring the man making the call. Who was sued? Well, dummy, obviously it was the phone company.
Or the woman who put her coffee between her legs to hold it while driving and then sued McDonalds because the java was so damned hot it scalded her privates.
Or the burglar who was walking across a roof in preparation to breaking into a store and fell through a skylight. He sued the manufacturer of the skylight for negligence…and won.
In the Wal Mart case the judge is actually taking it under advisement. Why waste the court's time? Why not just through it out and tell the driver to be more careful when he drives around parking lots? Doesn't anyone take responsibility for their actions any more?
JVH
3 Responses
I often wish I could install regulatory signs along our roads which read “Do Not Crash”; or possibly post warning signs with either a green circle, green square, or black diamond corresponding to the degree of roadway difficulty.
Gee, just like skiing — Sorry honey, gotta hang up now, I’m on a black Diamond road and need to concentrate…I wonder if insurance companies would charge less if you only drove on “Bunny” roads. JVH
You close on an easy question. The answer is “No.”