Quote:
|
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
On a lark I tried to find more info about the Oakland bank robber anecdote in the OP and all I could find was the same blurb on various conservative blog and tort reform advocacy sites.
|
That figures. Wingnut bloggers and tort reformers hear something through the grapevine, embellish the everluvin' hell out of it and post it as gospel truth. The funny part is that after awhile they create their own self-sustaining circle of bullshit by citing each other as sources for the same anecdote.
Where have we seen that tactic before? Oh yeah -- the field of creation "science"/intelligent design.
If the three cases referenced in the OP went down exactly as Murdock says they did, the outcomes likely would have been something like:
1) Dismissed via summary judgment. Grounds: qualified immunity and primary assumption of risk.
2) Same.
3) The case against the power company would be dismissed via summary judgment. Grounds: the power company did not breach any duty to the plaintiff. As to an undiscovered trespasser, the landowner's sole duty is to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury. No evidence of willful or wanton misconduct here.
The case against the bar owners meets the same fate. Dram shop claims are available only to persons the drunk injures, not to the drunk himself.