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
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.
Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit.Rich said:The poor sod will probably only get about $20,00000000000000 in damages![]()
Kraj said:Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit.![]()
![]()
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.
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.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.
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.Rich said:What I find strange is that the perpetrator isn't facing a criminal trial![]()
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.