Thread: “They were just, like, ‘I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Sure it does. There's a common sense culpability. That's what this thread's supposed to be about - not the legality. Sure the men had responsibility to cover the hole. But that has no bearing on the fact that you can't walk around with your head down and expect to not get smacked. This is akin to having one's head up one's- er, having one's head in the sand. It's funny because it's true, and it's just common sense! She is a victim of her own making - the workers simply provided her an opportunity to exhibit her lack of understanding when it comes to "watch where you're walking when you go down a street, especially when there are construction workers around." The way she got there was all her

You are entitled to your wrong opinion. If common sense had anything to do with civil law, there wouldn't be tags on hair dryers warning consumers not to use them in the shower.

Originally Posted by icedog

it is not her fault.

Sigh.

You're saying she was in no way responsible for what happened?

Just because the workmen were negligent, that doesn't mean she wasn't responsible for her actions.

She was walking without watching where she was going.
She walked over the open manhole.
She was the one whose actions were the direct cause of the accident.

Of course it was her fault.

I'm on the fence here. In the court of common sense, of COURSE she's at fault. She should have been looking where she was going, that goes without saying.

But then again...the city workers should have known that people are dumbasses and put up a barrier. That there is always someone around stupid enough to fall down an open manhole cover ALSO goes without saying. ALWAYS. Half of a public worker's job should be to think of ways to keep morons out of the way.

When it comes to the law? I kind of think the city workers were dumbasses for not covering their dumb asses and putting up barriers. What, do they want idiots wandering around while they're working?

But my real beef here is with the parents. They're the ones suing--they should teach her a lesson and make her pay for her own medical bills. I don't want to pull the old "my parents were way more strict than parents these days" because they weren't particularly strict, but if I had fallen down a manhole because I wasn't paying attention (and I wasn't all that serioulsy hurt), my dad would have called me 6 kinds of idiot and made me apologize to the city workers for interrupting their work.

If I HAD been seriously hurt, he probably would have beaten the guy in charge of the city workers half to death.

Wait....someone mentioned an amount. 10k I think it was?

You guys seriously want to give the girl 10.000 american dollars for falling into a hole and not injuring herself?

REALLY? Good lord man.

Here's what she SHOULD get (even if it wasn't her fault):

Compensation for any items of clothing ruined, Compensation for medical bills, an apology from the city departement responsible.

A slap on the head for being an idiot.

THAT'S a reasonable compensation.

If you people think 10k is reasonable for falling into a hole I need to get myself over to the states and start finding some holes.

I could live off falling into holes if that's true.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Sigh.

You're saying she was in no way responsible for what happened?

Just because the workmen were negligent, that doesn't mean she wasn't responsible for her actions.

She was walking without watching where she was going.
She walked over the open manhole.
She was the one whose actions were the direct cause of the accident.

Of course it was her fault.

You are attempting to apply your logic to the civil law of the United States. I am not saying that she is not physically responsible. Of course she is, she got herself there. However, according to the law, the workmen created a hazard and they alone are responsible to protect the public from that hazard. It's okay that you believe what you would like to believe. I am only telling you what the law civil court will believe.

Originally Posted by icedog

While it may seem funny because the girl was "texting", it is not her fault. It is strictly the responsibility of the men who removed the cover. Until the moment they remove the cover, there was no hazard. They caused the hazard, they alone are liable. The girl's activity at the time has no bearing so long as the walk way was open to the public.

Nah, she definitely shoulders some of the blame in my opinion. Texting while walking in the road... I've done this myself and nearly got run over as a result. Got the fright of my life as I noticed a car out the corner of my vision brake hard and slam the horn. I apologised for my stupidity and, after calming down on the other side of the road, realised that I came very close to running for the Darwin Award. It was dumb as hell, and you can bet I will never text while walking, be it crossing the orad or in the middle of a deserted field. If you want to walk, you look where you're going.

While I agree there may be some blame on the workers, no-one has mentioned what was pointed out in the report: that the men were in the act of getting the correct barriers etc. when this happened. While this doesn't shift the blame wholly to the girl, in my mind it does reduce the charge of negligence on the workers.

P.S. It's interesting that the Brits in this thread are very much of the mindset that the girl is the party to blame, rather than the men. This probably reflects the differences in personal litigation between the US and UK. (Not making any judgement here, just an observation!)

Originally Posted by icedog

The girl's activity at the time has no bearing so long as the walk way was open to the public.

Really?

I think it has everything to do with it.

Next time a drunk driver or someone asleep at the wheel, hell a texting driver, hits someone they can remind the world their actions had no bearing on the incident because the road was open to the public.

I think what Brad is trying to say is that it's only the girl's fault if we first pass a law that one cannot text and walk at the same time

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I think what Brad is trying to say is that it's only the girl's fault if we first pass a law that one cannot text and walk at the same time

My point is that what you're doing ALWAYS has a bearing, there might not be a specific law for it, you might go into court and look like a complete bloody idiot and still win, but it always has a bearing.

Otherwise, we would not have those laws.

Originally Posted by gregs656

My point is that what you're doing ALWAYS has a bearing, there might not be a specific law for it, you might go into court and look like a complete bloody idiot and still win, but it always has a bearing.

Otherwise, we would not have those laws.

My point is that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding civil law in this country. The workers removed a manhole cover and left the scene. Trust me, she has an airtight case.

Here's a question for the sake of the debate. If you have sidewalk across the front of your property and it has ice on it. If someone slips and falls on that ice, whose at fault? What is the same person tripped on a crack in the same sidewalk?