Re: Not Ob/Gyn: Lawyers! Gotta luv 'em!
From: Charlie Chambers (cchamber@gorge.net)
Thu Jul 28 10:43:16 2005
It goes back to the philosphy that people want a risk free life which
will never exist. Further, everyone wants complete autonomy but no
responsibility. All the lawsuits certainly don't help the matter. When
adversity strikes, the first question is are you considering talking to
a lawyer? It's more of a reflex than should I get milk since I'm at the
grocery store?
************************************************************************
****
Charlie Chambers
Hood River, OR
cchamber@alumni.rice.edu
"Almost anything you do will seem insignificant but it is very important
that you do it....You must be the change you wish to see in the world"
-- Mahatma Ghandi.
************************************************************************
*******
On Jul 28, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Anna Meenan, MD wrote:
> "safe" for a 9-year-old whose mother is stupid enough to let him hang
> out unsupervised at the downtown public library, would probably have to
> be a ten-foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire.
>
> I guess we have to keep all the lawyers employed, but trying to write
> exemptions for every entity and situation just seems like an exercise
> in
> futility (not to mention just reading that stuff gave me a headache).
> And did they write an exemption for the streetcars? My brother told me
> a
> mom collected several mil because her daughter stood up in the seat
> next
> to an open window and fell out.
>
> Anna Meenan, MD
>
> At Thu, 28 Jul 2005, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 7/28/05 12:10:08 AM, annam@uic.edu writes:
>>
>>> I believe the parks, paths, and the area behind the
>>> library were laid out by the city for people to recreate in. Does
>>> that
>>> mean that the river should be lined on either side by 6' chain link
>>> fence as it flows through the entire town? I've just never heard of
>>> natural features being termed attractive nuisances.
>>>
>> But there's the rub. It's not "natural" any more. You put parks and
>> paths a d
>> recreational areas around it. If that's the case, then you need to
>> make it
>> "safe." LOL
>>
>> What you do is, you pass a law (yeah, I know, "they oughta pass a
>> law")
>> denying liability for stuff like this.
>>
>> In La, for example, we have this:
>>
>> La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795:
>> ..
>> B.(1) Except for willful or malicious failure to warn against a
>> dangerou
>> condition, use, structure, or activity, an owner of land, except an
>> owner o
>> commercial recreational developments or facilities, who permits with
>> or wit out
>> charge any person to use his land for recreational purposes as herein
>> defin d
>> does not thereby:
>>
>> (a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purposes.
>>
>> (b) Constitute such person the legal status of an invitee or
>> licensee to
>> whom a duty of care is owed.
>>
>> (c) Incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by
>> any
>> defect in the land regardless of whether naturally occurring or
>> man-made.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> C. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of Subsection
>> B sh ll
>> be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land
>> leased
>> for recreational purposes to the federal government or any state or
>> politic l
>> subdivision thereof or private persons.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> E. . . .
>>
>> (2)(a) The limitation of liability provided in this Section shall
>> apply o
>> any lands, whether urban or rural, which are owned, leased, or
>> managed as a
>> public park by the state or any of its political subdivisions and
>> which are used
>> for recreational purposes.
>>
>> (b) The provision of supervision on any land managed as a public
>> park by the
>> state or any of its political subdivisions does not create any
>> greater duty
>> of care which may exist and does not create a duty of care or basis of
>> liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property
>> caused by he act or
>> omission of any person responsible for security or supervision of park
>> activities, except as provided in Subparagraph (E)(2)(d) of this
>> Section.
>>
>> (c) For purposes of the limitation of liability afforded to parks
>> pursua t
>> to this Section this limitation does not apply to playground
>> equipment or
>> stands which are defective.
>>
>> (d) The limitation of liability as extended to parks in this Section
>> sha l
>> not apply to intentional or grossly negligent acts by an employee of
>> the pu lic
>> entity
>> ..
>>
>> There are a half-dozen or so more sections in this part of the law
>> which
>> remove liability (except for intentional acts) for such things as
>> Mardi Gra
>> parades, St. Patrick Day and other religious holiday parades, some of
>> the m rathons
>> and runs, and etc.
>>
>> So if there's a problem with a "river running through it," you need to
>> immunize that river, so to speak, against lawsuits. I would imagine
>> San A tonio's
>> Riverwalk area must have some laws in that regard. It looks awful
>> easy for
>> kids to fall in there.
>>
>> Joe P.
>
