Waffle House Poisoning Suspect Indicted (1 Viewer)

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,327
I'm sorry that this guy suffered but he should be responsible for his own actions...

Link
 

indesisiv

Access - What's that?
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
265
There should be a counter suit for rank stupidity.
There is no defence against this level of stupidity, certaintly no cause to sue.

Steve
 

BarryMK

4 strings are enough
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
1,352
indesisiv said:
There should be a counter suit for rank stupidity.
There is no defence against this level of stupidity, certaintly no cause to sue.

Steve

Reading closely I got the impression that the victim wasn't very bright. If say he was of low intelligence wouldn't that place the responsibility on the perpetrator and a duty of care on the employer? You might be clever enough to avoid such an incident but your brother might not. What appears to be open and shut at first glance may not be what it seems. That's why we have judicial systems to test the evidence.
 

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 11:00
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,327
BarryMK said:
Reading closely I got the impression that the victim wasn't very bright. If say he was of low intelligence wouldn't that place the responsibility on the perpetrator and a duty of care on the employer? You might be clever enough to avoid such an incident but your brother might not. What appears to be open and shut at first glance may not be what it seems. That's why we have judicial systems to test the evidence.

Hum... Good point. I suppose we would have to draw some kind of line in the sand as to when a person should or shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions. At the same time, I'm guessing the guy that got him to drink it was not aware of just how dangerous the substance was. He was probably thinking that it was just going to taste bad and that was all. And when the guy spit it back up they would all get a good laugh...
 
R

Rich

Guest
The poor sod will probably only get about $20,00000000000000 in damages :rolleyes:
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
I think the reckless conduct charge is just. Irregardless of how dangerous the man who proposed the bet perceived the liquid to be, it is practically common knowledge to never, ever ingest any chemical. Which is also why the man who drank it should have no grounds for a lawsuit, even if he is literally retarded. There are two circumstances where I could see a lawsuit against Waffle House being valid: 1.) If the employee who bet the other had a history of reckless/stupid/dangerous conduct and Waffle House failed to do anything about it, or 2.) Waffle House failed to provide any reasonable training on chemical safety.

Rich said:
The poor sod will probably only get about $20,00000000000000 in damages :rolleyes:
Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit. :rolleyes: :p
 
R

Rich

Guest
Kraj said:
Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit. :rolleyes: :p


Irrelevant, the insurance pays :eek: :p
 

BarryMK

4 strings are enough
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
1,352
Kraj said:
I think the reckless conduct charge is just. Irregardless of how dangerous the man who proposed the bet perceived the liquid to be, it is practically common knowledge to never, ever ingest any chemical. Which is also why the man who drank it should have no grounds for a lawsuit, even if he is literally retarded.

That places a great deal of responsibility on the victim, who if he was retarded, might not have the necessary judgement or possibly the strength of will to withstand coercion by someone mentally stronger but unscrupulous.
 
R

Rich

Guest
BarryMK said:
That places a great deal of responsibility on the victim, who if he was retarded, might not have the necessary judgement or possibly the strength of will to withstand coercion by someone mentally stronger but unscrupulous.

What I find strange is that the perpetrator isn't facing a criminal trial :confused:
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
BarryMK said:
That places a great deal of responsibility on the victim, who if he was retarded, might not have the necessary judgement or possibly the strength of will to withstand coercion by someone mentally stronger but unscrupulous.
That may be true, but it's no reason to sue Waffle House, except under the circumstances I already described. IMHO, the quote in the article from the victim doesn't strike me as how the average retarded person would speak.

Rich said:
What I find strange is that the perpetrator isn't facing a criminal trial :confused:
Reckless conduct is a criminal charge. It is a misdemeanor offence (ie., not serious) so generally there is a fine and maybe some minor jail time, but rarely is a trial necessary.
 
R

Rich

Guest
Kraj said:
Reckless conduct is a criminal charge. It is a misdemeanor offence (ie., not serious) so generally there is a fine and maybe some minor jail time, but rarely is a trial necessary.

Then why is a civil trial pending?
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 16:00
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
Civil trials are for settling tortious disputes between two parties, such as between Waffle House and the victim. Criminal court is for trying and punishing people who violate criminal law. The two are completely seperate since different laws apply.
 

pono1

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:00
Joined
Jun 23, 2002
Messages
1,186
What I wonder: what do they put in their waffles?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom