John Carol is suing another man, Ed Call, because John's son Mike was injured inside an abandoned barn on Call's property. The barn floor collapsed when Mike entered the barn. Mr. Carol claims that Mr. Call should have kept his barn locked if it was shuch a dangerous place. Mr. Call claims that the barn stands on his own private property and that Mike was trespassing.
2007-12-04 08:08:51 · 8 answers · asked by morena 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Unfortunately, Ed is liable. He could counter sue for damages to his property, but in the end only the Lawyers will get anything out of it all.
2007-12-04 08:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unless Mike was an invitee or the barn was considered an attractive nuisance Ed is not liable. An invitee is a trespasser who the property owner knows is on the property or at least on it sometimes and does nothing to stop. An attractive nuisance is a dangerous object or property that is "irresistible" (it looks like fun to play with or in) to a person without the common sense to realize the danger such as a child or retarded person. Usually an attractive nuisance must be visible from a public place.
2007-12-04 16:25:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, the current law has that John Carol will win, because Ed has a duty of due care to prevent access to the hazard that was on his land.
I disagree with the law, but it is what it is.
Mike, on the other hand, can be charged criminally. And he can also be counter-sued for damage to the barn, for which he is liable.
2007-12-04 16:13:41 · answer #3 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on Mike's age. If he is under age seven, he is presumed to be incapable of negligence. And the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine can be used to make a case against the property owner.
However, Mr. Call's second defense would be that he was not aware of any problem with the floor and is not negligent.
There is not enough info for me to decide this case. I would want to do a complete investigation.
2007-12-04 16:17:01 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well this is a pretty easy answer. If the person who got hurt did not have permission to be on the property then there is no grounds for a law suite. Now if we were talking about a public place then yes there would be alot of money to be suied for. It is like saying that a person came and robbed my house and I hit them with a bat. Can the robber take the home owner to court? Of course not he was tresspassing.
2007-12-04 16:25:00 · answer #5 · answered by love for all 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
John should foot his son's own bills and if I were Ed I would counter-sue for damages done by Mike. Unfortunately, that is probably not going to be the outcome.
2007-12-04 16:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by cmdrbnd007 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One can always sue. Whether or not they are successful will have to be proven.
I think it would depend on the age of Mike at the time he tress passed.
2007-12-04 16:31:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
AH... Even if you are tresspassing, you can still sue. Sucks. We have a lot wrong with this nation.
2007-12-04 16:12:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋