English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You can sue someone for almost anything these days, so here's a hypothetical question.
You invite loads of kids to a birthday party at your house. One of them is behaving badly, running round wrecking the joint, then slips on a cream-cake he threw at the cat. He's hurt - and the parents need time off work to nurse his concussion.
Are you, the house-holder to blame? Or can you counter-sue for wrecking your property?

2006-08-23 12:02:59 · 15 answers · asked by JustineTime 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

15 answers

You would be held liable for his injuries because you have a duty of care to anyone on your property (yes unfortunately trespassers can be included!) and you should have cleaned the cake up as it posed a foreseeable risk of injury!! There was a case in france a few years back where a drunk driver who crashed his car and injured himself, sued the hosts of a party he was at for supplying him with drink when they knew he was driving.... Sometimes the law is an *** - and it can be a nightmare working in it from a defence point of view!!

2006-08-23 12:25:13 · answer #1 · answered by sammydog_uk 2 · 1 0

Under the law of Tort every property owner has a 'duty of care' towards visitors including trespassers. Thus if you happen to have a disused mine shaft on your property you have to take reasonable steps to secure it and give warnings to others. Whether or not you can be held liable for any injury a visitor inflicts on themself will depend upon the circumstances. Was the fence sufficiently high and secure. Was the visitor able to read and understand the warning (especially relevant where minors are concerned).
In your hypothetical case if you had taken steps to calm the child down and they had ignored your warnings then you would be able to demonstrate that you took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your visitor. I'm not going to answer the second part I think you can work it out for yourself. An invited guest under the age of 18.

2006-08-23 12:26:33 · answer #2 · answered by charlie r 2 · 0 0

the only element that i choose my universal practitioner to pledge to is, "First, do no injury." It would not say particularly how the oath has replaced - only that it has. i could think of that each and each graduating universal practitioner has the "no injury" piece lined in despite oath he's taking. particularly truthfully, i do no longer think of that a doctor could be obligated to help under any circumstances. i could wish that maximum could opt for to help, yet they might desire to no longer could danger their very own lives with the intention to accomplish that. The oath got here approximately in the previous we had automobiles, ambulances, existence flight choppers, and an abundance of docs everywhere in the country. only a hundred years in the past, if a doctor refused to help you for some thing minor, that's a death sentence. right this moment, that's no longer likely to be actual.

2016-11-05 11:50:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

nope you should have sent the kid home because of the way he was acting, I won't put up with anyone's kid acting like that at my house. I won't think twice about telling some kid to leave mine alone if he is acting that way and if the kids parents say anything i point out how there kid is acting and ask them why they would allow such behavior.

2006-08-23 12:07:02 · answer #4 · answered by chupakabra123 5 · 0 0

I think its mad that everyone seems to be sueing each other....people spend more time in court than they do having a life, but in answer to your question you probably could counter claim

2006-08-23 12:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i think you have a chance to counter sue, but I'm not sure it would go to court as you invited him into your home knowing that it might happen, but yes he could sue you as it wasn't cleaned up as soon as it happened.

2006-08-23 12:05:56 · answer #6 · answered by welshwife 4 · 0 0

Chances are you are responsible since it happened in your house... Whether it was your fault or not.

Another possible factor --- were you in charge of supervision? This might be an issue...

2006-08-23 12:05:42 · answer #7 · answered by snape4good 4 · 0 0

I wouldn't rely on this forum for such a situation. But check with your homeowners' insurance, if they threaten any action.

2006-08-23 12:52:55 · answer #8 · answered by amish-robot 4 · 0 0

Yes, the home owner is responsible! What a sucky world!!

2006-08-23 12:06:10 · answer #9 · answered by Fluke 5 · 0 0

Your fault because, assuming that his parents weren't there, you were in loco parentis (in essence taking the part of the parents)

2006-08-23 12:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers