Scruit

My Russian is not that good. And my cameras are better quality.

If the DOT was aware of the risk created by that specific pothole and did not take reasonable steps to mitigate that risk then they are liable. If the pothole opened up recently enough that the DOT had no reasonable opportunity to fix it then they're in the clear. It's all about knowledge of a risk and failure to mitigate. Same thing happens in supermarkets - a slip/fall generally only becomes the store's problem if they were aware, or should have been aware, of the dangerous condition and did not take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk. If you slip on something that's only been on the floor for a couple of minutes then, well, sorry 'bout your luck. Maybe you can get a nuisance settlement. If you slip on something that's been there an hour and has been reported to the staff... Then the store is clearly negligent.

They have made an arrest... http://tdn.com/news/local/police-arrest-man-suspected-of-indecent-exposure-at-lake-sacajawea/article_957cd7ce-360a-11e2-a4bd-0019bb2963f4.html

She needs to carry condition 1. This also seems to be a reasonable response to a sex offender committing a crime agaisnt her. She didn't shoot, but she stopped the crime in its tracks. Way to go.

That wasn't the end of it. The silver car set off in pursuit in the longer version I saw, but the camera car didn't follow. I'm sure they had a further opportunity to exchange pleasantries.

Definitely there are those that seriously lack self sufficiency.

We're done.

Tell these people that it's doesn't matter - premises liability has been overruled by OR. http://m.propertycasualty360.com/2012/11/19/5-tips-to-avoid-black-friday-premises-liability---

Then we agree to disagree.

You cannot wrap your head around the concept that more than one person can be responsible. IF fights break out regularly and they do nothing to prevent it. BOTH are responsible. Why can't you understand that more than one person/group can be responsible?? Are you dense? How many times do I have to say it? "I never said the stupid are not responsible for their own actions." There's the fundamental disconnect. You think only one person can be responsible for an event. I think that multiple people can be responsible. If you can't get it through your thick skull that more than one person can be responsible for something then there is nothing more to say.

http://dogbitelaw.com/ Ohio is in the "minority of states" with a one-bite law. http://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/ohio-dog-bite-law.html But wait, there's more... Same page So I stand corrected. Ohio is not *statutorially* one-bite-state. But it's not that easy... Same page again... Statutory law says there is no one-bite rule, but case law and court precedents apply an effective one-bite-rule in that you must show the dog was vicious and the owener knew it. Does you head hurt yet? Mine does.

And that would be a reasonable mitigation that would absolve them of liability.

Let's all stop for a second and classify these groups so we all know who we are talking about... In a Black Friday sale you have the store (e.g Walmart) you have hundreds of normal people, and then you have a small contingent of hardcore fucksticks. - If a fuckstick goes off an hits/shoots/stabs/pepper sprays someone then they are responsible for that crime. - If a pair of fucksticks go at it then they are both responsible for that crime. - If a normal person is injured by the actions of a fuckstick then premises liability law kicks in: - Are the premises reasonably safe? Is the store aware of a risk that exists? Did the store take reasonable steps to reduce that risk?

*sigh* Again, the people who do the stupid stuff are still responsible for the their own action. I never said otherwise. The store should be liable for any civil torts arising from the frenzy they create. Low, man. Low.

I have summer tires on mine. I have winter tires too - not snow tires. There's a difference.

If I don't use the phone at all, I pay $0 that month. If you don't use your phone at all, you still pay $35 for the month. That's the difference. (Although I just saw BoostMobile.com still lists a pay-as-you-go plan? Confused now, I thought that went away.) Here is where it went away: http://forums.instamapper.com/viewtopic.php?id=2701 And now it is back: http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/plans/pay-as-you-go/

I never said the individual idiots are not responsible for their criminal actions. (** See blow) What I am saying is that Walmart is to take reasonable steps to provide a safe place for customers to shop and by knowingly creating a dangerous situation they become liable as well. The individual customer should be charged with whatever crime he committed and Walmart is at risk of being sued for monetary damages for corralling all these idiots together despite an long and well established pattern of dangerous conditions. It's no different than when a bar is shut down after repeated acts of violence. The bar is not responsible for individual's crimes, but if the bar cannot stop the crimes from happening then they get shut down. It may not be the bar's fault, but you reach a point where public safety is more important than making a buck. And Walmart knows this. And because they know this, they are required to take reasonable steps to mitigate this. Premises liability is an amorphous concept sometimes... Used to be that a slip/fall on ice was a sure winner for the customer. Then stores started clearing sidewalks. Then people started suing for slip/fall on poorly cleared sidewalks arguing that the cleared sidewalk is represented as safe so the risk was hidden from them. Then the courts started ruling that people should recognize when a walkway is icy and be extra careful, so nowadays people don't clear sidewalks as much because a poorly cleared sidewalk is a risk, an uncleared sidewalk is not. It's stupid. ** If you're all arguing that anyone who goes to Walmart on BF and gets trampled should be treated like someone who slips/falls on an obviously icy path... Well, you may be onto something there. I thought we were talking about the personal responsibility of the idiot doing the shooting/stabbing/pepper spraying/trampling... I wouldn't go near WM on BF.

Ready again: "None of the prepay providers do a pure pay-as-you-go any more. Everyone charges monthly service fees of about $50. " Is that a pay-as-you-go plan or a plan with monthly service fees? $35? $50? same difference - it is no pay as you go. I have 3 boost accounts that I pay no service fees at all for because I have grandfathered pay-as-you-go plans.

None of the prepay providers do a pure pay-as-you-go any more. Everyone charges monthly service fees of about $50.

I have a Boost Mobile phone and I got on board while they still did a pure pay-as-you-go service with no monthly charges. Boost recently announced they are dropping iDEN support so any Motorola phone beginning with i (i290, i296, i335 etc) will quit working in June/July 2013. I asked them if I could switch over to CDMA phones on my current plan and they said "maybe". I asked if the CDMA phones allow 3rd party apps to see the GPS chip on the phone (I had heard Boost chose to block that feature to force you to use their own software) then said; "maybe". I asked if I could switch back to iDEN if CDMA blocked GPS - they said no.

The store is responsible for cramming idiots into a tight space.

Intent to buy means nothing. You could just as easily put the item back and not buy it. I know of no legal protection of the status of "intent to buy" (outside of a signed offer in a real estate type transaction...) There doesn't have to be a crime to be a tort. Libel is not a crime. There is enough of an established pattern that I think it's easy to prove that the stores knew, or should have known, that a risk exists. Now, it is such an infinitesimal risk that it likely unreasonable to demand expensive control or laws etc. However, in the purest legal sense; any person or company that does not take reasonable steps to mitigate a risk that they are aware of is negligent. The question is what is a reasonable way to address the risk?