posted
I suppose you could request a restraining order. However you would need to know the name of the person spying on you and serve him/her/it with notice of hearing for the restraining order.
Beyond that I suggest an aluminum foil helmet.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series is becoming too long...Is there anything we can do to make him clue it up soon? Also my pizza took 35 minutes to arrive last night and it wasn't free, should I sue?
From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could go all Misery on him, but legally there is nothing you could do to Mr. Jordan.
Regarding your pizza, did the restaurant you ordered it from make a promise of a delivery time and state that the compensation for failing to meet the delivery time would be a refund of the cost of the pizza? If so, you could file suit. However the cost of filing a suit might cost more than the pizza.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: A new case for you from the world of torts. (And I don't mean the yummy kind you eat)
Battery is the intentional touching of another that is harmful or offensive.
Nationally known anti-smoking advocate Randy J Reynolds was at radio station WONK to be interviewed by Joe Opinion for The Great American Smoke Out. Another WONK employee, B J O'Blowhard purposefully blew cigar smoke in Reynolds' face several times. Reynolds sues both O'Blowhard and WONK for battery.
What do you think?
Since health officials have repeatedly concluded that smoking is hazardous, and so is second-hand smoke, I'd say Reynolds was correct in suing O'Blowhard. And since O'Blowhard was (1) an employee of WONK, (2) purposefully blowing smoke in the course of working for WONK, and (3) (adding in an assumption on my part here) based upon his name, his employment behavior conformed to the typical (especially morning) radio controversial/zany/hype mold, then I fully agree WONK is also liable...
UNLESS the company (A) had an employee policy fstipulating a code of conduct, (B) this policy was actively and uniformly enforced prior to the incident, (C)O'Blowhard was educated about this policy, AND (D) WONK initiated disciplanary proceedings against O'Blowhard for violations in writing prior to the commencement of Reynolds' suit... in that case, I would say that O'Blowhard should be responsible for WONK's share of the damages as well as his own.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say O'Blowhard is liable but not WONK since O'Blowhard was acting on his own initiative and not in the performance of his job - he was not the one interviewing Joe Opinion.
WONK sends O'Blowhard to sensitivity training, to no effect, and all involved benefit from the publicity.
posted
So Quis! How about giving your lawyerly perspective on a few recent Legion-y situations?
1. The Lightspeed Vanguard appears (unbidden?) to rescue a ship from certain peril. They are successful. They then present the person in charge with a bill. When the bill isn't paid, the LsV then appropriates the ship's cargo in lieu of the cash.
2. As Ayla tells the assemblage in issue 26, she and her twin brother Garth both had the "job" of keeping surveillance on their older brother, who was said to have a severe psychological disorder. (Who assigned this job is unknown at this time. Whether or not older brother had reached the age of majority at time of the incident in question is also unknown at this time. The twins were clearly minors.) IN this incident, the presence of the two younger siblings led to all three being gravely injured; while all three survived and eventually recovered following weeks in intensive care, there could very well have been fatalities if the oldest sibling hadn't managed to transport them all to a medical facility.
Just how many lawsuits could we possibly have here? Yikes!
Man, those Ranzz kids always have something going, don't they?
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante: So Quis! How about giving your lawyerly perspective on a few recent Legion-y situations?
1. The Lightspeed Vanguard appears (unbidden?) to rescue a ship from certain peril. They are successful. They then present the person in charge with a bill. When the bill isn't paid, the LsV then appropriates the ship's cargo in lieu of the cash.
This is interesting and I think there are a couple of different aspects to look at.
First, could the LSV charge for rescue services? I would say "yes" after all that is how bodyguards make a living. But, the bodyguard makes a contract before performing his/her services. In this case, there is no pre-exisiting contract between the LSV and the owners of the cargo ship. The LSV freely provided their services without the owners of the cargo ship asking for those services. So, just like you can use the return address stickers the Easter Seals sends you without having to make a donation, the owners of the cargo ship does not have a legal obligation to pay the LSV for a rescue.
However, what if the LSV (or the LEgion for that matter) incurred expenses in performing the rescue? Would the person rescued be required to pay those expenses? There is some debate in the real world about this issue, particularly when dealing with people who put themselves into dangerous situations (i.e. mountain climbers) that could require rescues. What do you think about that?
Now for that last part. Say that there is an agreement between the LSV and the owners of the cargo ship for rescue services. The LSV's only means of recourse is to sue the owners for breach of contract. If successful, the court may order that property be sold in order to pay the judgement. However, the owners would have a counterclaim for any damages the LSV caused to the owners' property during the rescue. If the LSV (and the Legion) did not charge for their services, then they would be covered for liability under any existing Good Samaritan laws. But the LSV could not take the law into their own hands and take the cargo themselves. That is stealing and saying that the person you took from owes you money is not a valid defense.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thriftshop Debutante: 2. As Ayla tells the assemblage in issue 26, she and her twin brother Garth both had the "job" of keeping surveillance on their older brother, who was said to have a severe psychological disorder. (Who assigned this job is unknown at this time. Whether or not older brother had reached the age of majority at time of the incident in question is also unknown at this time. The twins were clearly minors.) IN this incident, the presence of the two younger siblings led to all three being gravely injured; while all three survived and eventually recovered following weeks in intensive care, there could very well have been fatalities if the oldest sibling hadn't managed to transport them all to a medical facility.
Just how many lawsuits could we possibly have here? Yikes!
Man, those Ranzz kids always have something going, don't they?
I'll have to re-read this issue. I would say that the "job" was one of familial duty rather than an actual caregiver role. And so, there doesn't seem to be any basis for any lawsuits.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: A new case for you from the world of torts. (And I don't mean the yummy kind you eat)
Battery is the intentional touching of another that is harmful or offensive.
Nationally known anti-smoking advocate Randy J Reynolds was at radio station WONK to be interviewed by Joe Opinion for The Great American Smoke Out. Another WONK employee, B J O'Blowhard purposefully blew cigar smoke in Reynolds' face several times. Reynolds sues both O'Blowhard and WONK for battery.
What do you think?
Since health officials have repeatedly concluded that smoking is hazardous, and so is second-hand smoke, I'd say Reynolds was correct in suing O'Blowhard. And since O'Blowhard was (1) an employee of WONK, (2) purposefully blowing smoke in the course of working for WONK, and (3) (adding in an assumption on my part here) based upon his name, his employment behavior conformed to the typical (especially morning) radio controversial/zany/hype mold, then I fully agree WONK is also liable...
UNLESS the company (A) had an employee policy fstipulating a code of conduct, (B) this policy was actively and uniformly enforced prior to the incident, (C)O'Blowhard was educated about this policy, AND (D) WONK initiated disciplanary proceedings against O'Blowhard for violations in writing prior to the commencement of Reynolds' suit... in that case, I would say that O'Blowhard should be responsible for WONK's share of the damages as well as his own.
quote:Originally posted by Fat Cramer: I'd say O'Blowhard is liable but not WONK since O'Blowhard was acting on his own initiative and not in the performance of his job - he was not the one interviewing Joe Opinion.
WONK sends O'Blowhard to sensitivity training, to no effect, and all involved benefit from the publicity.
This was a case about battery which is the intentional harmful or offensive toucing. In its simplest form a battery would be a punch in the nose. The person intends to hit you, you are "touched", and you are harmed. Those are the three elements of battery. The elements are satisfied even if the person committing the battery isn't the one who "touched" you, but instead threw something at you or fired a bullet at you. So even though they have not technically "touched" you, they would be liable. But if they just shook their fist at you, there would be no "touching" and thus no battery. So is blowing smoke in someone's face a "touching"? The court said "Yes". Smoke is made up of tiny particles of matter and that those particles of matter hitting Mr. Reynold's face constituted a "touching". And even though the touching wasn't harmful, it was offensive. And because it was intentional (rather than say O'Blowhard blowing the smoke to the side, not knowing Mr. Reynolds wasn't there) you have all three elements of the tort of battery.
In regards to WONK, they would not be liable (even if they had no policy as Kent suggested) because employers are not liable for the INTENTIONAL torts of their employrs even if performed in the course of their employment. They would be liable for acts of neglegence which are not intentional torts.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have a question regarding my recent trip to Earth. I was in New York when a friend suggested we go to London England for lunch. Being a tourist I consulted Google Maps' Get directions feature for directions.
I asked for directions from Broadway to Picadilly Pl in London and the system gave me this output.
1. Head northeast on Broadway toward W 94th St 0.1 mi 1 min 2. Turn left at W 96th St 0.2 mi 1 min
Skipped to Step 10 Through Connecticut and Mass
10. Merge onto I-84 E Partial toll road Entering Massachusetts 40.7 mi 38 mins 11. Take the exit onto I-90 E/Mass Pike/Massachusetts Turnpike toward N.H.-Maine/Boston Partial toll road 56.0 mi 56 mins 12. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min 13. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins 14. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi 15. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi
16. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours
Arrive at Le-Havre France and continue through Normandy through the Chunnel into England. (48 steps)
65. Turn left at Vine St 75 ft
My question is. If I were foolish enough to attempt step 16 could I sue Google because the Maps service is supposed to be an authority on giving direction?
From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: And so, there doesn't seem to be any basis for any lawsuits. [/QB]
I fear for your bar membership. The torts, they should be a-flyin'.
Let's figure the Winath system of jurisprudence to be similar to what we have in the US at this time.
AYLA & GARTH (or, more likely, a parent/guardian or another adult acting on their behalf, because they are minors) could file against someone or something (their parents? a Dapartment of Health or some organization that either by omission or comission led to A&G being somewhere where they shouldn't have been?) for their medical bills (if not already covered) and pain & suffering?
MEKT (or, again, an adult on his behalf if he was still a minor) could do the same.
THE RANZZ PARENTS or GUARDIANS (the elder Ranzzes haven't been mentioned) might also hit the govt. that subtly or outright encourages this sort of thing and thus fails to provide trained care for a citizen deemed to be mentally ill and dangerous (if only to himself). The kids were out of commission for awhile, unable to help around the farm.
MEKT and/or THE TWINS/PARENTS (or another party, possibly depending on who owned the vehicle in question?) could go after the cruiser manufacturer. Malfunction due to a relatively small amount (maybe 200 lbs.) of weight? Hello, failsafes?
I could also see any Solo-Rights activist groups(such as may exist on Winath) or perhaps progressive (from some points of view) psycho-medical professionals filing actions -- even if the filers don't expect the action to go very far, they might do so anyway if only to draw attention to written or unwritten policy and to stimulate public discussion of the issue.
That's not to mention possible criminal charges of endangering the welfare of children.
I'll go watch some TV, maybe come up with some more.
quote:Originally posted by Tamper Lad: Quislet Esq.,
I have a question regarding my recent trip to Earth. I was in New York when a friend suggested we go to London England for lunch. Being a tourist I consulted Google Maps' Get directions feature for directions.
I asked for directions from Broadway to Picadilly Pl in London and the system gave me this output.
1. Head northeast on Broadway toward W 94th St 0.1 mi 1 min 2. Turn left at W 96th St 0.2 mi 1 min
Skipped to Step 10 Through Connecticut and Mass
10. Merge onto I-84 E Partial toll road Entering Massachusetts 40.7 mi 38 mins 11. Take the exit onto I-90 E/Mass Pike/Massachusetts Turnpike toward N.H.-Maine/Boston Partial toll road 56.0 mi 56 mins 12. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min 13. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins 14. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi 15. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi
16. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours
Arrive at Le-Havre France and continue through Normandy through the Chunnel into England. (48 steps)
65. Turn left at Vine St 75 ft
My question is. If I were foolish enough to attempt step 16 could I sue Google because the Maps service is supposed to be an authority on giving direction?
No, because dead people can't sue.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mekt Ranzz - Re-Imagined]](graemlins/MektRanzz3.gif)
![[Venturan Walking Money]](graemlins/VenturanWalkingMoney.gif)
