Waffle House Poisoning Suspect Indicted (1 Viewer)

[KenHigg]

I'm sorry that this guy suffered but he should be responsible for his own actions...

Link

 

[indesisiv]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Rich]

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

 

[Kraj]

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.

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

Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit.

 

[Rich]

Since the entire Waffle House chain is probably worth about $100, that might be overshooting a bit.

Irrelevant, the insurance pays

 

[BarryMK]

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.

 

[Rich]

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

 

[Kraj]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

What I wonder: what do they put in their waffles?