redkow97 Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Maybe i'm the only person who finds this kind of shit interesting (if so, i promise not to stat any more threads:) ), but I enjoy the complexities of our legal system. The problem is, in a 50-75 minute class, you rarely get to truly debate the merits of various points. Political discussions on this board prove we've got some intelligent members, and a variety of opinions, so i'm curious to see what everyone thinks.The hunting thread reminded me of this case. What does everyone think the decision WAS, and what do you think it SHOULD have been?:3 men are hunting, and 1 goes to take a piss.As he returns, the other 2 BOTH fire in his direction (i.e. both of them obviously act negligently. That's a fact. not up for debate). Only one of them actually hits him, but it's impossible to determine which one. (this is an actual case from the 1920's or something, so forensic evidence doesn't exist).The man who is shot sues the other two for $100k (total). What is the result? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Both share liability... or neither.I'm thinking neither because if you can't prove who you can't prove fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Judgment rendered against both defendants for the sum of $100k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmagicglock Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 usually its considered unethical by the DA to try two people simultaneously for the same crime. However, there is precedence of such a thing happening. I give to you the 9th circuit of appeals out of San Francisco. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/24/BAGM13TQVN1.DTL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Justin were you quoting the case or just making your guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hue jass Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 The man who is shot sues the other two for $100k (total). What is the result?Are we supposed to guess what the verdict was or act as judge and jury?I would argue that since it's impossible to determine who actually shot the guy, it's therefore impossible to tell which one to sue. Case thrown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 That's a good point, regardless, 1920 the case would be ruled differently in this day and age.In 1920 I'd guess neither one was held responsible... in 2009 I'd guess they would both be held responsible for 50k each But in THIS day you could tell who fired, they'd test striations and all that jazz.... even with buckshot or shit they'd be able to tell who made the ammo and then who had used that ammo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 hmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 they were both hog tied for having "purdy lips" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 Justin were you quoting the case or just making your guess?That was my guess.It's only logical since they were both negligent, who actually hit the guy is irrelevant to the judgment in this instance. The verdict would have to be against both parties and let them sort out how the victim gets the $100k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 And upon further investigation... I believe I am correct.Too bad the /spoiler tags don't work on here or I'd go ahead and post the case and the legal precedent established, which is actually names for the case: The _______vs. ______ Rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 I don't disagree that you may be right about the case history, I still maintain since you can't prove it was either one of them (or the sniper from the grassy knoll) neither SHOULD be held liable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 I don't disagree that you may be right about the case history, I still maintain since you can't prove it was either one of them (or the sniper from the grassy knoll) neither SHOULD be held liable.So if my girlfriend and I come to your house for dinner and both key your car because we don't care for kosher food, neither of us should be held liable?Think about what you're saying when you can't prove liability that NO ONE should be held liable. That makes zero sense, and all you'd have to do is find a 'partner in crime' to go around committing criminal acts and if you do it right... no one can pin it on either of you, you both walk away - without being penalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 I know what you're saying and the point makes sense, but there's a difference with intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Ok, we didn't MEAN to key your car, my keys were just in my hand when I was holding the side dish we were bringing in. And my girlfriend was also carrying food and some sharp object pointed outward.Intent is irrelevant - we're still liable for damages to your vehicle due to our negligence, no?Or, just "it was an accident" and you can't prove it was me or my girlfriend... then, sucks to be you, you've got to pay to have your own car fixed?Which scenario makes more sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 we should let the law student answer our questions instead of arguing back and forth.i'd ask my friend who already is a lawyer, but she'd charge me $225/hr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Since this thread has run it's course. Spoiler info for those that even care anymore.Here's the background info:Summers v. Ticehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_v._TiceCausation Law (Summers v. Tice Rule)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_%28law%29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anden Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Criminal they both walk Civil they both pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f4isvt Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I would agree that if you cant prove who shot the bullet to actually hit the the third party you wouldnt be able to sue either one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f4isvt Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I also believe the third party should have found a better spot to piss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 That's a good point, I'm making a stretch from criminal to civil.... that's where I ran astray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 the 'answer.'The case is Summers v. Tice, if anyone cares to read the opinion, and no one got it exactly right, although many of you were on the right track.Basically, the court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff, and says "well, one of these guys DID shoot him, so he has to recover 100% of his damages."The question of whom is left to the plaintiff. He can recover 100% from EITHER party, or he can say "i want 20% from you, and 80% from you." That's called "joint and several liability," which is kind of an old-school principle these days, but still applicable in some cases.what irritates me a little is that say one of the guys who shot at him was his father. obviously he's going to ask for 100% from the other guy. the fact that most people don't like (myself included) is that someone innocent is being held liable - even if you can't tell whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 You sir, are about 5 post too late - same thread.http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=396048&postcount=17I'd say I got it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrillo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 the fact that most people don't like (myself included) is that someone innocent is being held liable - even if you can't tell whom.which is why the person that shot him should have aimed better, or shot again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 You sir, are about 5 post too late - same thread.http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=396048&postcount=17I'd say I got it right. only the first half of the question was about what was actually (legally) 'right.'I thought everyone's opinions would be more interesting. Looking it up isn't an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.