That is what would be argued in court, I guess. The person who got injured is going to argue the pool should have been completely inaccessible/unusable, or you should have had a fence that was harder to jump over, etc.
honestly, having a fence and telling them to leave should be enough reasonable precaution. they have notice they aren't supposed to trespass into your property and get into the pool.
Yes for an adult but for a minor you should protect them If you know that minors are going to trespass your property and are going to keep doing soo u should do something that fully stops them like a bigger fence or call the police or make the area they are going to be safe U are an adult if a minor is doing something bad u should still take precautions to keep them safe cause minors are stupid they can't think right enough to be held fully accountable for what they are doing
I'm curious what "reasonable precautions" would be in the case of a pool, that aren't already part of having a pool. Like I don't know what the law is everywhere, but when I put mine in I needed a fence. I needed a gate that could lock. I needed a deck that wouldn't be slippery, and wasn't covered by shrubs (which reminds me I need to trim that bush).
Exactly, there's already a fence that's being jumped in the example. There have been warnings against trespassing. What additional precautions can you take?
It was just an example If you have someplace that is unsafe and you know minors will keep using it without your consent you should find a way to fully stop them or make that area safe These are minors u can't just "oh I put a fence they can jump over that's enough" u are an adult that should take care of those minors even if they are doing something stupid
@@KatoKrazy yuuup. I’m not sure what more you could do. Barbed wire? Sounds like you face a suit for injury. This shouldn’t even be something you can sue over
tbh i get what ur saying but the judge or jury is most likely not gonna side with a dude that hurt a kid just because they went in you pool if they went in your house that would be justified
A better lawyer would tell you "the question shouldn't be whether or not you have a case, but whether or not you have a case you have a reasonable chance of winning."
Even that depends on the state. In some, you have no duty of care to trespassers (meaning if they trespass and hurt themselves, not on like a booby trap, but just a regular injury, they wouldn't have a case against you)
I think the only exception with the stray dog is if anyone called it in and reported to the municipality and the municipality didn't take any action (send in animal control to try and capture the stray). There was a local case around me back in 2012-2013, not exactly stray dog, but a woman was crushed by a fallen dead tree branch on a windy day in a park. The family successfully sued the city because there were multiple calls to the city reporting the dead tree branch and the city failed to address it in a timely manner, not even putting up signage as a warning.
@@redjoker365you can still go after the city. Or the cities animal control. A cities animal control also lays claim to every animal. They just haven't gotten to them yet. If they've received a call about the dog and someone got bit?
Telling the kids to stay off your property should be all the reasonable precaution necessary to protect yourself from liability. You said they're hopping a fence; it's already enclosed and not publicly accessible
Yeah, there are no reasonable steps left, this is now entirely on the conduct of the delinquent minors and you cannot just take over as their parents because their parents are negligent. A CCTV camera won't stop it happening, it will only add liability of recording minors without the permission of their parents.
Pools in particular are major liability issues. The lawyer is right if your pool is not porperly secured you could be at a liability if someone goes into it and drowns. Same thing with trampolines. If someone bounces on it and breaks their leg and you don't have the proper enclosure or fence you're liable.
@@christianjames92did you not hear the scenario where the attorney said the kids are JUMPING THE FENCE? I don’t know how much more secure someone could make a residential property.
Saw a case in the U.K. where a burglar broke into a person's house, was injured by an overhead pot holder that had some knives on in that fell on him, sued the homeowners, and actually won.
That's like the one here where the burglar wom a case when he trapped himself in the homeowners garage for the weekend and had to survive on kibble. Yes the burglar won....
@@thegimpygamerThat's a fake story. Search for "TERRENCE DICKINSON" and you'll find all sorts of people pointing out how that story was made up as a hoax. Most stories like that are made up or have a deeper level to them. Like McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was filed because they were making coffee way hotter than any other company and it would scald you if you drank it immediately after receiving. There's also a made up story about a robber suing after falling through a skylight.
@@thegimpygamer That's a fake story. Search for "TERRENCE DICKINSON" and you'll find all sorts of people pointing out how that story was made up as a hoax. Most stories like that are made up or have a deeper level to them. Like McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was filed because they were making coffee way hotter than any other company and it would scald you if you drank it immediately after receiving. There's also a made up story about a robber suing after falling through a skylight.
Generally, like having non-slip tile or decking around it, you know stuff you're supposed to have when owning a pool, it's just that whether or not you invited someone into it or they broke in to swim the pool should be safe either way so if they break in to go swimming and get out slip and break their neck because you don't have non slip materials their your at fault.
Huh in Serbia the government will provide compensation if you are bitten by a stray dog. It is thought that it is the governments fault that the stray dog wasn't taken care of.
Because part of the city government called veterina(animal control in the US) deals with animals so they are responsible. It's just that, like the rest of the government here, they suck so at best they neuter stray dogs and return them to roam so we in the Balkans have a huge amount of stray dogs compared to the rest of Europe and North America.
It's still shocking to me that they will take responsibility for failing a task they didn't even really attempt in the first place and in the US they don't take responsibility since they are obviously doing a much better job.
@@Nikola-pn2yx A funny story the gypsy community got a brilliant idea, they would take the skull of a dog or some other animal boil it and bite themselves with it to claim the payout for the "damages". It got discovered though.
When I worked at Bed Bath & Beyond we were told to never acknowledged anyone dumpster diving. We were told if we acknowledge them and they get hurt we could get sued. So yeah it seems like a pretty common idea among corporations.
I think it's like trespassing. If someone is on your property uninvited, and you tell them to leave, they are trespassing. If someone is on your property and you acknowledge their presence without explicitly telling them to leave (maybe you wave at them), they are now your guest. You are now responsible for their safety.
@@kohlraedirectioner they’re committing a crime by jumping the fence. Hurting yourself in the commission of a crime should waive your right to sue for injury.
@@Libertas.Aeterna1776it should waive your right, but often times it doesn't. For instance, emergency exit signs have to be on at all times to guarantee the burglar doesn't get out of a commercial building in case of emergency.
What about in a case where kids go over to someone’s place, & into their pool, and get hurt…..but there’s no prior history of it? On top of there being no fencing…..what happens? (Yes, I know it’s foolish on both sides, but possible)
There is always precedent, and the pool owner will be liable for the injury. That's why it's called precaution, cause it already happened before in other cases.
In NYS, any pool over TWELVE INCHES DEEP is legally required to have a 4' fence, to code, with an automatically locking gate. Beyond that, the pool owner has done what is required and can not be held liable for criminal acts, such as trespassing. Fact. Been there.
@@rattlecat5968 Most gates do not lock automatically. Plenty of people with pools have low tech fences where you have to put a regular old lock or padlock on it. I used to have an above ground pool (NYS). The pool was in the backyard, with a locked gate. Most trouble we ever had were vandals hopping the fence to throw mulch in. Cops were called but they didn't care. They only care about vandalism cases if they catch the perp in the act, if it's a business, or if the damage costs thousands. They had zero interest in so much as interviewing parents of kids in the area who were likely to have done it. Maybe it would be different in a small town but in my area, cops are notoriously lazy and corrupt across many issues. The stories I could tell you would make your head spin.
In the stray dog case, in my country you can sue the city because there is a fault of service, and the City hall has the obligation of dealing with the stray dogs
You should do a video on tenant rights and landlords who refuse to make repairs. I'm dealing with this situation currently and have no idea how to go about it.
You can't sue an animal but what if a dangerous wild animal regularly went to a human habitation for food because a person was routinely feeding the wild animal and being nice to it making the animal less afraid of humans. Then subsequently the wild animal began attacking humans demanding food and being unafraid of being scared off.
Feeding wild animals, or tempting them to feed at your property is actually against the law for that very reason. Of course, bird feeders are not illegal,but, if you have bear in your area, you are just begging for problems. You can't even leave dog food outside bc it attracts rodents and animals that may carry rabies or even just be a nuisance by tearing up garbage left uncovered. Common sense, people. Try it. You'll like it.
@@rattlecat5968 common sense has changed from how people are educated, they're raised to believe kindness is always good and the remedy to all problems. That being nice to a wild animal will make it tame.
There's a joke in law school that the answer to every legal question is "It depends..." Then you start practicing & realize, this is just actually the truth. Yours is a completely different hypothetical so all of the analysis is different. If you could prove all of that, which may be difficult, then yeah, maybe you could claim negligence on part of the wild animal feeder. Everything is so specialized in the law for this reason. I'd ask a dog bite lawyer, there's probably an expert in your area (lol I wish I was kidding)
@@Erich614 Saying "it depends" is not a sentence, it's a fragment of a sentence. I know it depends on one thing or another... What(!) does it depend on? Does it depend on a specific jurisdiction having a specific statute? What makes the difference?
@Treblaine I could write a whole paper on this but I'll do my best to explain quickly. Yes, those things you mentioned (different statutes in different jurisdictions) matter. But it's deeper than that. Our system basically works like this-- The legislative branch passes broad statutes that generally mirror the society's moral consensus (and I say broad but that is the wrong word, some statutes are very specific and that will make sense in a second but just think of it like that, our morals say killing is bad so we pass the "broad" law of murder is a crime). Trials, and litigation in general, happen at the edge. When there are edge cases that can't be decided by the law that is written. Both sides present the facts of what happened, and we have 12 citizens look at the facts and compare it to the law as written, and decide what should happen in a situation like this. Trends happen, and over time, when something is decided in the same way over and over, congress notices and adds or changes statutes. There is also "case law" which comes from one of the central principles of our legal system, "Stare Decises" which is Latin for "follow that which has been decided" or something like that. So if a higher court has already decided an edge case in a certain way, you follow that. Thats why the federal supreme court is so important, theyre the highest level Court that can make a decision, sort of where the buck stops for Stare Decises (seems almost bs because they essentially can create law, even though thats supposed to be the legislative branch's side). Now, juries decide issues of fact, not law, which is getting into the weeds here & hopefully my Stare Decises tangent doesn't confuse you more. Point is, to go back to your example, there are a few factors: 1. What you said, the specific jurisdictions statutes. The written down laws. 2. The specific jurisdiction's case law which can veer wildly in different directions by jurisdiction even if their original statutes are similar. This is where specialization comes in and why if you search something as specific as dog bite lawyers in my area, five different experts will pop up. 3. Your situation may not fall under 1 or 2, it's entirely new, you are an edge case that has not been decided, we can't follow anything l. 4. If you are an edge case, you may go to trial. Which means a jury of 12 random people (and yes, there's more to that part too, every single step has a fork that I may not have mentioned) from the jurisdiction will look at your edge case. They'll look at the facts, the law, what each lawyers has told them matters to fit that law based on x,y,z (no one really knows, that's why we have juries), etc. At the end of the day, my point is, our entire system is based around the idea that we can't write laws for everything. We know we can't. We've conceded that. Every situation is different and nuanced and requires scrutiny. And everyone's moral and legal framework for the world is also different, so they'll see laws and caselaw as meaning different things. There is no objective formula in ANY situation to say "If X happened, Y should follow." Im sure there's 12 other hypotheticals like yours that slightly change the facts and expect there to be a formula like that but it's just not the case. Even if there's a specific don't feed wildlife statute in your jurisdiction, you'll be able to think of a hypothetical that would require a jury to decide, I guarantee it. Welp, that did turn out long, woops.
The attractive nuisance example is weird. That person did take precautions. They built a fence. They erected a physical barrier to keep people out. The next step is setting up cameras, no trespassing signs, and police involved to trespass them.
What if its your home and the fire alarm didn't go off and they had new fresh batteries? 1.) After testing it found that the Alarm was faulty. Or 2.) After testing it is found the alarm works perfectly, but the fresh just out of the pack batteries and all the batteries in the new pack are fauly/dead.
For the last one, what would make the most sense to me is: If the smoke detector was supposed to be in working order and was properly maintained but still didn't go off, it's the smoke detector company's fault. If it was broken, expired, or otherwise improperly maintained, it's on whoever was in charge of maintaining the building. If you were renting, it's the landlord. If you were in a corporate building, it's either the building manager or the tenant, depending on what the contract says. If you own the building, it's your own damn fault.
I could see some rare circumstances where you could try and sue for a stray dog bite? Something like, a small First Nation community that has an overwhelming stray dog population. Or a shelter that loses control of its dog population through some type of gross negligence.
with the smoke alarm one: different types of smoke alarms are better at detecting different types of fires. old ionization detectors detect flaming fires really well (as well as cooking smells) but struggle to detect smoldering fires. photoelectric detectors detect smoke from smoldering fires (or even steam) that you can see, because they detect it much more visually, but can struggle more with detecting flaming fires because they burn much more cleanly. however, 8th gen ionization smoke detectors can detect all those fire types really well. you can also mix ionization and photoelectric. also having one type of smoke alarm is still better than having no smoke alarms.
My new-build apartment doesn’t have air-conditioning. They told me the day I signed my lease someone was on their way over. It’s been a month. Still no AC. They keep saying the contractor is coming. More and more people have moved into the apartment complex. None of us have air-conditioning. Could I sue them to break my lease and get my rent and deposit back?
It's the landlord's responsibility to make the building habitable and not having A/C can be considered uninhabitable if you live in an area where the temperature can be severe. I would recommend checking with your local government about filing a complaint.
If you have the landlord's promise to install A/C *IN WRITING,* I would go buy a window unit or a portable A/C and at the next rent payment, subtract the cost of the A/C you bought with a copy of the land lord's promise to install A/C, along with the receipt of how much it cost you, and a rent payment equaling the difference. That works in NYS. Call your local gov't and see if their *"RENTER'S RIGHTS"* covers that in your state.
One more example where I can see having a case for being liable with dumpster diving. If the owner knows theres a dumpster diving problem and PURPOSEFULLY makes things dangerous for people doing so. There was a local business that was putting dangerous things like razors and screws into pizza it was throwing out BECAUSE it knew people were dumpster diving for food. The dumpster was unlocked, not fenced in, and was owned by the town, not the restaurant. They got into HUGE trouble.
as for the pool, there is no argument on earth that can convince me that a fence is not already all the reasonable precaution you should ever need to avoid any and all liability when someone does something on your property without your consent.
i love that all of this is covered by insurance here in Germany and they will do all the potential suing and stuff i dont think the average american could even afford to sue in many cases
In my country, you sue the city if you get bitten by a stray dog. And the city pays off, it's a pretty standard case. People even faked dog bites. We do have a stray dog problem.
PLEASE ANSWER. My Roommate (19) signed at the hospital to keep his medical info private from his parents. They came in the room with someone else and his parents there to tell him he had marijuana induced vomiting. This caused a major fight between him and his parents.
If there's a legal expectancy of a body of local government or whatever, being responsible for the stray dogs in the area, i believe he could have a case.
Heres a case for youu from everyone in Kansas. Colorado puts hp a dam and now a year or sk later our rivers have completely dried up. We have no access to fresh water like that. Its gotten so bad lakes dry up and the rivers feeding them have too. Which also means houses and lakeside property flood when we get lots fo rain be ause the rivers dried up they dont know how to take in water anymore
In my country, if you get bitten by stray dog, you sue the city because city should've made sure there are no stray dogs. Most of the time, they just settle for amount and pay you up
Depends on if the batteries in the smoke detector died or the owner didn't replace them. If that is the case, then they can't sue due to their own negligence.
So I broke a big mirror in my house The landlord says it's $1,000 to fix (I think he's just trying to scare me and he's full of s***) But I refuse to pay for it because it is a design flaw of my apartment. The mirror in question is on a door that separates my bathroom from the furnace room. We're renting this place upstairs above a gas station however here's why it's a design flaw.. when you open the front door to come in all of the wind rushes into that furnace room and pops the door open with a good amount of speed and force I had a scale sitting between the toilet and that mirror / door and it broke the mirror because it flung open into the scale too fast... The landlord says that he's lived here 20 years and it's never been popped open that far before but here's the thing... This used to be a whole upstairs, one giant room, compared to the gas station downstairs. Now it is cut in half into two apartments so yes I get it It never used to pop open for him but they're never used to be a wall separating the two halves of this apartment.. The air used to be able to go out through the cracks of the other windows and the other entrance of the upstairs.. I make disability every month, can I be sued to force me to pay for that? And that's my only income I've heard mixed reviews but I would really love an answer
I got attacked in the face by a 200 lb dog and tried to sue when the owner refused to cover the cost of my medical treatment and lost wages for the time i had to take off of work, but the owner of the Dog didn't have any money or assets.
Dumpster Diving falls under Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. It's an extremely common activity, especially in areas of high population, that there must be reasonable efforts of safety
I feel like in the stray dog case if the person knew an aggressive stray dog was on their property and did nothing about it they could be held liable. I would need to know your duty for wild animals on your property and how difficult it would be to establish failure of fulfilling that duty to see if my argument holds up but I could see it.
Do I have a case: my employer pushed me out of my job the month I turned 60 after a glowing performance review and won't say why they no longer want me working for them. It was clear collective dismissal in an effort to keep a non-compete enforced.
Residential smoke detector seems like it would be a difficult case if its your own the home. I know almost no one that actually keeps up with a proper testing schedule. Or apartments for that matter, I assume they are supposed to because the first apartment I ever had actually did have maintenance come around and check everyone's smoke detectors twice a year, but never again in the other three.
One thing that almost happened to me that I was curious about was. Would I have a case if I were to be driving at night and a car blinded me by having their brights on, causing me to hit a deer that was on the road.
So if I tell my kid to lie to authorities and continually jump into somebody's pool and to get hurt as soon as the homeowner announces they're calling the police... I'm in the right by what is provable in court? I LOVE THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE!
What about stray dogs that live on a territory of a store or gas station? The workers feed them, so they're responsible for attracting them to the property. Even have doghouses sometimes. Can they be sued as the owner?
Smoke inhalation one is probably a 'next in custody' type thing. You sue the next guy, who proves they did everything right. then the both of you sue the next guy, who proves everything right. Up the chain until someone is on the hook. Problem is by the third person getting sued, you are starting to get closer and closer to not making back what you spent on the case, so you are very much incentivized to talk to the next guy up to get the records before suing, because if you can take steps 2 and 3 out, and jump to 4th step, you are much more likely to see a positive outcome to your finances as opposed to mutual pain. Would still run what you got through your lawyer though, cause if you take their word, and step 4's lawyer catches guy from step 3 lying, then you are spending a ton of time un-tying a knot after losing on step 4.
I have read that in my state, NYS, having a *"BEWARE OF DOG"* sign on your property is a de facto admission that you have a "dangerous dog" on the premises and that makes one liable for a dog injury against anyone harmed by the dog. What is interesting is that *home owner's insurance companies will NOT pay for an injury sustained while committing a crime.* So, an intruder must sue the home owner directly - for their being bitten by a dog on the property they were robbing! 🤣 Some laws are stupid, counter-intuitive laws. But, hey, it's NYS 🤷🏻
"sir, last year, a thief entered a house and hurt himself due to a small accident he had, you awarded said person a lot of money... i entered a dumpster in a similar manner, shouldnt you giv mony plx?"
Any intelligent landlord has a specific lease addendum requiring its own signature, which says you've tested the smoke detector on move-in, and assume responsibility to regularly test it, and change batteries as needed. Plus, as tenant, you'll promptly report any defects detected during routine tests. How rigourous are routine tests? Tenant responsibility, but no less than needed.
If it’s Garfield, you sue Jon. As much good as that’ll do ya.
If you got bit by Garfield, you are a cartoon character. You have no case outside the image you were drawn in.
If you get bit by Garfield it's already to late.
What if you hadn't cleaned off your shirt after spilling lasagna on it?
@@SlightlySchizophrenicI'm sorry, John...
@@carlsiouxfalls Little known cartoon jurisdiction and venue rules.
That “what” had all the energy of “Tf you just say to me??”😂
E
@@EEEEEEEEthis meme is dead
Shouldn’t the FENCE THEY ARE JUMPING OVER cover the “reasonable precaution”?
That is what would be argued in court, I guess. The person who got injured is going to argue the pool should have been completely inaccessible/unusable, or you should have had a fence that was harder to jump over, etc.
honestly, having a fence and telling them to leave should be enough reasonable precaution. they have notice they aren't supposed to trespass into your property and get into the pool.
Yes for an adult but for a minor you should protect them
If you know that minors are going to trespass your property and are going to keep doing soo u should do something that fully stops them like a bigger fence or call the police or make the area they are going to be safe
U are an adult if a minor is doing something bad u should still take precautions to keep them safe cause minors are stupid they can't think right enough to be held fully accountable for what they are doing
It's do you have a case, not you have a 100% winnable one.
@@wolfbad512i was a minor once and never did stupid shit like that
I'm curious what "reasonable precautions" would be in the case of a pool, that aren't already part of having a pool. Like I don't know what the law is everywhere, but when I put mine in I needed a fence. I needed a gate that could lock. I needed a deck that wouldn't be slippery, and wasn't covered by shrubs (which reminds me I need to trim that bush).
Install automatic turrets all around your yard
Exactly, there's already a fence that's being jumped in the example. There have been warnings against trespassing. What additional precautions can you take?
There isnt any more precautions you can take so if they get hurt their case is dead in the water@@karlrovey
I didn't realize that. Our back yard gate doesn't lock.
It was just an example
If you have someplace that is unsafe and you know minors will keep using it without your consent you should find a way to fully stop them or make that area safe
These are minors u can't just "oh I put a fence they can jump over that's enough" u are an adult that should take care of those minors even if they are doing something stupid
Yeah, that pool fence example you gave, and how the owner can be at fault, is exactly what’s wrong with our legal system.
Right?! The fence is (at least should be) the reasonable safety precaution!
@@KatoKrazy yuuup. I’m not sure what more you could do. Barbed wire? Sounds like you face a suit for injury. This shouldn’t even be something you can sue over
Maybe covering it would be reasonable? 🤷🏻♂️
@@the-Gammaron with what? Most covers are soft. You’d have a harder time getting out of that lol
tbh i get what ur saying but the judge or jury is most likely not gonna side with a dude that hurt a kid just because they went in you pool if they went in your house that would be justified
“Do I have a case?” A good lawyer will tell you the answer is always “it depends.”
A better lawyer would tell you "the question shouldn't be whether or not you have a case, but whether or not you have a case you have a reasonable chance of winning."
A great lawyer won’t let you take nonsense to court and waste your time and money
Garfield was the cat ya jabroni 😂
jabroni? dz?
Came here to say exactly the same !
Whats up with them jabroni ass nibbas tryna see Compton?
That's the point, you can't sue an animal
We know?
"If you know that people are going to break onto your property, you need to make sure it's safe for them to break into"
Humongous strawman
@@TheEnigma702in generic terms, that's word for word what he said
Even that depends on the state. In some, you have no duty of care to trespassers (meaning if they trespass and hurt themselves, not on like a booby trap, but just a regular injury, they wouldn't have a case against you)
A Dunkin’ Donuts dumpster is an attractive nuisance since it is known to contain donuts.
I think the only exception with the stray dog is if anyone called it in and reported to the municipality and the municipality didn't take any action (send in animal control to try and capture the stray).
There was a local case around me back in 2012-2013, not exactly stray dog, but a woman was crushed by a fallen dead tree branch on a windy day in a park. The family successfully sued the city because there were multiple calls to the city reporting the dead tree branch and the city failed to address it in a timely manner, not even putting up signage as a warning.
Difference is the city does claim ownership of all the trees on public property, so they were liable for damage caused by their property
@@redjoker365you can still go after the city. Or the cities animal control. A cities animal control also lays claim to every animal. They just haven't gotten to them yet. If they've received a call about the dog and someone got bit?
Telling the kids to stay off your property should be all the reasonable precaution necessary to protect yourself from liability. You said they're hopping a fence; it's already enclosed and not publicly accessible
Yeah, there are no reasonable steps left, this is now entirely on the conduct of the delinquent minors and you cannot just take over as their parents because their parents are negligent.
A CCTV camera won't stop it happening, it will only add liability of recording minors without the permission of their parents.
Pools in particular are major liability issues. The lawyer is right if your pool is not porperly secured you could be at a liability if someone goes into it and drowns. Same thing with trampolines. If someone bounces on it and breaks their leg and you don't have the proper enclosure or fence you're liable.
Such a fucked concept. Should be the parents whose kids weren't taught not to trespass who should be liable.
i guess it depends on the fence and on the danger. the bigger the nuisance on your property the higher should be the fence :)
@@christianjames92did you not hear the scenario where the attorney said the kids are JUMPING THE FENCE? I don’t know how much more secure someone could make a residential property.
Saw a case in the U.K. where a burglar broke into a person's house, was injured by an overhead pot holder that had some knives on in that fell on him, sued the homeowners, and actually won.
That's like the one here where the burglar wom a case when he trapped himself in the homeowners garage for the weekend and had to survive on kibble. Yes the burglar won....
Yeah, because a safe house wouldn't have knives hanging from the ceiling that can fall.
@@thegimpygamerThat's a fake story. Search for "TERRENCE DICKINSON" and you'll find all sorts of people pointing out how that story was made up as a hoax. Most stories like that are made up or have a deeper level to them. Like McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was filed because they were making coffee way hotter than any other company and it would scald you if you drank it immediately after receiving. There's also a made up story about a robber suing after falling through a skylight.
@@thegimpygamer That's a fake story. Search for "TERRENCE DICKINSON" and you'll find all sorts of people pointing out how that story was made up as a hoax. Most stories like that are made up or have a deeper level to them. Like McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was filed because they were making coffee way hotter than any other company and it would scald you if you drank it immediately after receiving. There's also a made up story about a robber suing after falling through a skylight.
@@thegimpygamer or that case where someone was breaking into some building and fell through the damn skylight and won
What reasonable precautions for the pool? Something like having it on your private property? Wilful stupidity deserves consequences.
Generally, like having non-slip tile or decking around it, you know stuff you're supposed to have when owning a pool, it's just that whether or not you invited someone into it or they broke in to swim the pool should be safe either way so if they break in to go swimming and get out slip and break their neck because you don't have non slip materials their your at fault.
@@assface427 In his example they were already jumping a fence, which is required for all in ground pools btw.
Huh in Serbia the government will provide compensation if you are bitten by a stray dog. It is thought that it is the governments fault that the stray dog wasn't taken care of.
Because part of the city government called veterina(animal control in the US) deals with animals so they are responsible. It's just that, like the rest of the government here, they suck so at best they neuter stray dogs and return them to roam so we in the Balkans have a huge amount of stray dogs compared to the rest of Europe and North America.
It's still shocking to me that they will take responsibility for failing a task they didn't even really attempt in the first place and in the US they don't take responsibility since they are obviously doing a much better job.
Taken Care of how
@@TacitusKilgore-qj8do The pound probably but I am not sure
@@Nikola-pn2yx A funny story the gypsy community got a brilliant idea, they would take the skull of a dog or some other animal boil it and bite themselves with it to claim the payout for the "damages". It got discovered though.
When I worked at Bed Bath & Beyond we were told to never acknowledged anyone dumpster diving.
We were told if we acknowledge them and they get hurt we could get sued.
So yeah it seems like a pretty common idea among corporations.
I think it's like trespassing. If someone is on your property uninvited, and you tell them to leave, they are trespassing. If someone is on your property and you acknowledge their presence without explicitly telling them to leave (maybe you wave at them), they are now your guest. You are now responsible for their safety.
Great videos. Glad you showed up on my feed
Is a fence around a pool not a “reasonable safety precaution”
Well, if you already know they can and are getting past the fence, it's not enough.
It also depends if the gate locks from the inside or outside… if it locks from the outside, probably not
@@kohlraedirectioner they’re committing a crime by jumping the fence. Hurting yourself in the commission of a crime should waive your right to sue for injury.
@@Libertas.Aeterna1776It should waive your right... but, 🤷🏻 Every state is different.
@@Libertas.Aeterna1776it should waive your right, but often times it doesn't. For instance, emergency exit signs have to be on at all times to guarantee the burglar doesn't get out of a commercial building in case of emergency.
"You have to do everything possible"
I'm sorry, is that not what the fence is . . . ?
I like this a ton, you should make this a thing. Thanks for your content.
You look stressed before the questions come, but you nailed it. It’s hard to know everything and be correct 100% of the time. You got it dude
What about in a case where kids go over to someone’s place, & into their pool, and get hurt…..but there’s no prior history of it? On top of there being no fencing…..what happens? (Yes, I know it’s foolish on both sides, but possible)
There is always precedent, and the pool owner will be liable for the injury. That's why it's called precaution, cause it already happened before in other cases.
In NYS, any pool over TWELVE INCHES DEEP is legally required to have a 4' fence, to code, with an automatically locking gate.
Beyond that, the pool owner has done what is required and can not be held liable for criminal acts, such as trespassing.
Fact.
Been there.
@@rattlecat5968 Most gates do not lock automatically. Plenty of people with pools have low tech fences where you have to put a regular old lock or padlock on it. I used to have an above ground pool (NYS). The pool was in the backyard, with a locked gate. Most trouble we ever had were vandals hopping the fence to throw mulch in. Cops were called but they didn't care. They only care about vandalism cases if they catch the perp in the act, if it's a business, or if the damage costs thousands. They had zero interest in so much as interviewing parents of kids in the area who were likely to have done it. Maybe it would be different in a small town but in my area, cops are notoriously lazy and corrupt across many issues. The stories I could tell you would make your head spin.
One word: *ACCOUNTABILITY*
For the stray dog couldn’t he have sued the city administration for not ensuring effective stray animal control?
You'd have to show they were negligent in some way. The dog catchers can't be everywhere all at once, and sometimes shit happens.
It’s so weird that I always catch your videos early, nobody else
In the stray dog case, in my country you can sue the city because there is a fault of service, and the City hall has the obligation of dealing with the stray dogs
You could theoretically sue animal control if the stray is a known issue
You should do a video on tenant rights and landlords who refuse to make repairs. I'm dealing with this situation currently and have no idea how to go about it.
You can't sue an animal but what if a dangerous wild animal regularly went to a human habitation for food because a person was routinely feeding the wild animal and being nice to it making the animal less afraid of humans.
Then subsequently the wild animal began attacking humans demanding food and being unafraid of being scared off.
Feeding wild animals, or tempting them to feed at your property is actually against the law for that very reason. Of course, bird feeders are not illegal,but, if you have bear in your area, you are just begging for problems.
You can't even leave dog food outside bc it attracts rodents and animals that may carry rabies or even just be a nuisance by tearing up garbage left uncovered.
Common sense, people. Try it. You'll like it.
@@rattlecat5968 common sense has changed from how people are educated, they're raised to believe kindness is always good and the remedy to all problems. That being nice to a wild animal will make it tame.
There's a joke in law school that the answer to every legal question is "It depends..." Then you start practicing & realize, this is just actually the truth. Yours is a completely different hypothetical so all of the analysis is different. If you could prove all of that, which may be difficult, then yeah, maybe you could claim negligence on part of the wild animal feeder. Everything is so specialized in the law for this reason. I'd ask a dog bite lawyer, there's probably an expert in your area (lol I wish I was kidding)
@@Erich614 Saying "it depends" is not a sentence, it's a fragment of a sentence. I know it depends on one thing or another... What(!) does it depend on? Does it depend on a specific jurisdiction having a specific statute? What makes the difference?
@Treblaine I could write a whole paper on this but I'll do my best to explain quickly. Yes, those things you mentioned (different statutes in different jurisdictions) matter. But it's deeper than that. Our system basically works like this-- The legislative branch passes broad statutes that generally mirror the society's moral consensus (and I say broad but that is the wrong word, some statutes are very specific and that will make sense in a second but just think of it like that, our morals say killing is bad so we pass the "broad" law of murder is a crime). Trials, and litigation in general, happen at the edge. When there are edge cases that can't be decided by the law that is written. Both sides present the facts of what happened, and we have 12 citizens look at the facts and compare it to the law as written, and decide what should happen in a situation like this. Trends happen, and over time, when something is decided in the same way over and over, congress notices and adds or changes statutes. There is also "case law" which comes from one of the central principles of our legal system, "Stare Decises" which is Latin for "follow that which has been decided" or something like that. So if a higher court has already decided an edge case in a certain way, you follow that. Thats why the federal supreme court is so important, theyre the highest level Court that can make a decision, sort of where the buck stops for Stare Decises (seems almost bs because they essentially can create law, even though thats supposed to be the legislative branch's side). Now, juries decide issues of fact, not law, which is getting into the weeds here & hopefully my Stare Decises tangent doesn't confuse you more. Point is, to go back to your example, there are a few factors: 1. What you said, the specific jurisdictions statutes. The written down laws. 2. The specific jurisdiction's case law which can veer wildly in different directions by jurisdiction even if their original statutes are similar. This is where specialization comes in and why if you search something as specific as dog bite lawyers in my area, five different experts will pop up. 3. Your situation may not fall under 1 or 2, it's entirely new, you are an edge case that has not been decided, we can't follow anything l. 4. If you are an edge case, you may go to trial. Which means a jury of 12 random people (and yes, there's more to that part too, every single step has a fork that I may not have mentioned) from the jurisdiction will look at your edge case. They'll look at the facts, the law, what each lawyers has told them matters to fit that law based on x,y,z (no one really knows, that's why we have juries), etc. At the end of the day, my point is, our entire system is based around the idea that we can't write laws for everything. We know we can't. We've conceded that. Every situation is different and nuanced and requires scrutiny. And everyone's moral and legal framework for the world is also different, so they'll see laws and caselaw as meaning different things. There is no objective formula in ANY situation to say "If X happened, Y should follow." Im sure there's 12 other hypotheticals like yours that slightly change the facts and expect there to be a formula like that but it's just not the case. Even if there's a specific don't feed wildlife statute in your jurisdiction, you'll be able to think of a hypothetical that would require a jury to decide, I guarantee it. Welp, that did turn out long, woops.
I love this series
The attractive nuisance example is weird. That person did take precautions. They built a fence. They erected a physical barrier to keep people out. The next step is setting up cameras, no trespassing signs, and police involved to trespass them.
As an insurance broker, I always find these interesting. Also, I think if someone booby traps the dumpster to cause injury, also a case there
Also, criminal
Booby traps are illegal.
What if its your home and the fire alarm didn't go off and they had new fresh batteries?
1.) After testing it found that the Alarm was faulty.
Or
2.) After testing it is found the alarm works perfectly, but the fresh just out of the pack batteries and all the batteries in the new pack are fauly/dead.
1. You'd have a case against the alarm manufacturer.
2. You should test the alarm after installing new batteries.
These are great, need more of these
This is the best series. Please continue it!
"You cant sue Garfield"
Watch me 😂
I ❤ your content! People are missing out.
They trespass and I’m held liable is wild to me.
For the last one, what would make the most sense to me is:
If the smoke detector was supposed to be in working order and was properly maintained but still didn't go off, it's the smoke detector company's fault.
If it was broken, expired, or otherwise improperly maintained, it's on whoever was in charge of maintaining the building. If you were renting, it's the landlord. If you were in a corporate building, it's either the building manager or the tenant, depending on what the contract says. If you own the building, it's your own damn fault.
Thats wild that the onus is on you to protect trespassers from getting hurt
I could see some rare circumstances where you could try and sue for a stray dog bite? Something like, a small First Nation community that has an overwhelming stray dog population. Or a shelter that loses control of its dog population through some type of gross negligence.
with the smoke alarm one: different types of smoke alarms are better at detecting different types of fires. old ionization detectors detect flaming fires really well (as well as cooking smells) but struggle to detect smoldering fires. photoelectric detectors detect smoke from smoldering fires (or even steam) that you can see, because they detect it much more visually, but can struggle more with detecting flaming fires because they burn much more cleanly.
however, 8th gen ionization smoke detectors can detect all those fire types really well. you can also mix ionization and photoelectric. also having one type of smoke alarm is still better than having no smoke alarms.
My new-build apartment doesn’t have air-conditioning. They told me the day I signed my lease someone was on their way over. It’s been a month. Still no AC. They keep saying the contractor is coming. More and more people have moved into the apartment complex. None of us have air-conditioning. Could I sue them to break my lease and get my rent and deposit back?
It's the landlord's responsibility to make the building habitable and not having A/C can be considered uninhabitable if you live in an area where the temperature can be severe. I would recommend checking with your local government about filing a complaint.
If you have the landlord's promise to install A/C *IN WRITING,* I would go buy a window unit or a portable A/C and at the next rent payment, subtract the cost of the A/C you bought with a copy of the land lord's promise to install A/C, along with the receipt of how much it cost you, and a rent payment equaling the difference.
That works in NYS. Call your local gov't and see if their *"RENTER'S RIGHTS"* covers that in your state.
I just love this guys candor
One more example where I can see having a case for being liable with dumpster diving.
If the owner knows theres a dumpster diving problem and PURPOSEFULLY makes things dangerous for people doing so.
There was a local business that was putting dangerous things like razors and screws into pizza it was throwing out BECAUSE it knew people were dumpster diving for food. The dumpster was unlocked, not fenced in, and was owned by the town, not the restaurant.
They got into HUGE trouble.
Hey inthe case of stray dogs you can sue or atleast approach the municipal authority
It depends 😂
Obviously you sue the dog
The dense around the pool is the reasonable precaution
If I can't sue Garfield then what is the law even good for?!
as for the pool, there is no argument on earth that can convince me that a fence is not already all the reasonable precaution you should ever need to avoid any and all liability when someone does something on your property without your consent.
You are appreciated. Thank you.
i love that all of this is covered by insurance here in Germany and they will do all the potential suing and stuff
i dont think the average american could even afford to sue in many cases
“Attractive nuisance” is my bio on Tinder😆
In my country, you sue the city if you get bitten by a stray dog. And the city pays off, it's a pretty standard case. People even faked dog bites. We do have a stray dog problem.
Damn, but I always rotate my pool with one week of bleach and one week normal! Not my fault they jumped in bleach day 😔
PLEASE ANSWER. My Roommate (19) signed at the hospital to keep his medical info private from his parents. They came in the room with someone else and his parents there to tell him he had marijuana induced vomiting. This caused a major fight between him and his parents.
That's a violation of HIPPA
If there's a legal expectancy of a body of local government or whatever, being responsible for the stray dogs in the area, i believe he could have a case.
These are fun. More of em
I love this man
That background music is top notch
Reasonable safety precautions. Very subjective
Heres a case for youu from everyone in Kansas. Colorado puts hp a dam and now a year or sk later our rivers have completely dried up. We have no access to fresh water like that. Its gotten so bad lakes dry up and the rivers feeding them have too. Which also means houses and lakeside property flood when we get lots fo rain be ause the rivers dried up they dont know how to take in water anymore
In my country, if you get bitten by stray dog, you sue the city because city should've made sure there are no stray dogs.
Most of the time, they just settle for amount and pay you up
Thanks for reminding me to check my smoke detectors. 🙃
Depends on if the batteries in the smoke detector died or the owner didn't replace them. If that is the case, then they can't sue due to their own negligence.
part 1! yaaay
So I broke a big mirror in my house The landlord says it's $1,000 to fix (I think he's just trying to scare me and he's full of s***) But I refuse to pay for it because it is a design flaw of my apartment. The mirror in question is on a door that separates my bathroom from the furnace room. We're renting this place upstairs above a gas station however here's why it's a design flaw.. when you open the front door to come in all of the wind rushes into that furnace room and pops the door open with a good amount of speed and force I had a scale sitting between the toilet and that mirror / door and it broke the mirror because it flung open into the scale too fast... The landlord says that he's lived here 20 years and it's never been popped open that far before but here's the thing... This used to be a whole upstairs, one giant room, compared to the gas station downstairs. Now it is cut in half into two apartments so yes I get it It never used to pop open for him but they're never used to be a wall separating the two halves of this apartment.. The air used to be able to go out through the cracks of the other windows and the other entrance of the upstairs.. I make disability every month, can I be sued to force me to pay for that? And that's my only income I've heard mixed reviews but I would really love an answer
What do you mean I can't sue Garfield? 😂
I got attacked in the face by a 200 lb dog and tried to sue when the owner refused to cover the cost of my medical treatment and lost wages for the time i had to take off of work, but the owner of the Dog didn't have any money or assets.
It's really unfortunate, but those people are what we call "judgement-proof". I hope the dog was removed from its owner.
Smoke detectors are absolutely vital, our sense of smell literally doesn't work while we're sleeping, so change the damn batteries😂
Dumpster Diving falls under Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. It's an extremely common activity, especially in areas of high population, that there must be reasonable efforts of safety
I feel like in the stray dog case if the person knew an aggressive stray dog was on their property and did nothing about it they could be held liable. I would need to know your duty for wild animals on your property and how difficult it would be to establish failure of fulfilling that duty to see if my argument holds up but I could see it.
Do I have a case: my employer pushed me out of my job the month I turned 60 after a glowing performance review and won't say why they no longer want me working for them. It was clear collective dismissal in an effort to keep a non-compete enforced.
In Turkey if you got bit by a stray dog you can sue the county or city municipality. I am surprised that its not a thing in the US.
Residential smoke detector seems like it would be a difficult case if its your own the home. I know almost no one that actually keeps up with a proper testing schedule. Or apartments for that matter, I assume they are supposed to because the first apartment I ever had actually did have maintenance come around and check everyone's smoke detectors twice a year, but never again in the other three.
Garfield the dog. Ah yes.
What about a deliberate trap placed into the dumpster
The first one, I'm wondering what happens if it's an HOA community and they do not allow you to raise the height of the fence.
One thing that almost happened to me that I was curious about was. Would I have a case if I were to be driving at night and a car blinded me by having their brights on, causing me to hit a deer that was on the road.
If it's unmarked dog, can I sue the animal control from not removing it from the street if it was previously reported?
Fun thing about attractive nuisance is they never actually define a specific age limit.
We apparently have a lot of legal experts in the comments
So if I tell my kid to lie to authorities and continually jump into somebody's pool and to get hurt as soon as the homeowner announces they're calling the police... I'm in the right by what is provable in court? I LOVE THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE!
I like these shorts
What about stray dogs that live on a territory of a store or gas station? The workers feed them, so they're responsible for attracting them to the property. Even have doghouses sometimes. Can they be sued as the owner?
Smoke inhalation one is probably a 'next in custody' type thing. You sue the next guy, who proves they did everything right. then the both of you sue the next guy, who proves everything right. Up the chain until someone is on the hook.
Problem is by the third person getting sued, you are starting to get closer and closer to not making back what you spent on the case, so you are very much incentivized to talk to the next guy up to get the records before suing, because if you can take steps 2 and 3 out, and jump to 4th step, you are much more likely to see a positive outcome to your finances as opposed to mutual pain. Would still run what you got through your lawyer though, cause if you take their word, and step 4's lawyer catches guy from step 3 lying, then you are spending a ton of time un-tying a knot after losing on step 4.
Who can I sue to make money. So disgusting how people look to take advantage of a shitty situation.
Stray dogs living free 🤙🤙
I heard that there’s this mythical guy called John Doe that is wanted in 158 countries and has 1353 felonies held against him.
Would the fence be the "reasonable precaution"??
It's not related to dumpster diving, but there are strict rules around pool fences and they are subject to inspections
Do i have a case?: My cellphone company constantly keeps double charging me and i have to call every month to fix it
You might be able to sue the city if you can show that they are ignoring a stray animal problem in a neighborhood.
The very definition of an ambulance chaser.
I have read that in my state, NYS, having a *"BEWARE OF DOG"* sign on your property is a de facto admission that you have a "dangerous dog" on the premises and that makes one liable for a dog injury against anyone harmed by the dog.
What is interesting is that *home owner's insurance companies will NOT pay for an injury sustained while committing a crime.* So, an intruder must sue the home owner directly - for their being bitten by a dog on the property they were robbing! 🤣
Some laws are stupid, counter-intuitive laws. But, hey, it's NYS 🤷🏻
I'm curious if there have been any successful cases where the criminal sues the homeowner. I'm going to research that now.
WRONG!
Dumpsters full of perfectly good stuff attract entrepreneurs.
Common sense still says they aren't safe to be in.
@@johnclaybaugh9536 common sense is not common.
@@johnclaybaugh9536 I don't think it told you that.
@@punkinhaidmartin you sound ignorant.
@@johnclaybaugh9536 I hear ignorant.
"sir, last year, a thief entered a house and hurt himself due to a small accident he had, you awarded said person a lot of money... i entered a dumpster in a similar manner, shouldnt you giv mony plx?"
I'll sue the city, i should have a reasonable sense of security from stray animals
Any intelligent landlord has a specific lease addendum requiring its own signature, which says you've tested the smoke detector on move-in, and assume responsibility to regularly test it, and change batteries as needed. Plus, as tenant, you'll promptly report any defects detected during routine tests.
How rigourous are routine tests? Tenant responsibility, but no less than needed.
Served on a Jury where a 18 year old removed the smoke detector, and he died do to fire, he caused, while sleeping, his family received 15 million