|
Well, apparently these idiots think money will bring
their family back... Yeah. That solves EVERYTHING.
Is there some other sort of wrongful death lawsuit, or other lawsuit seeking monetary compensation for harm intentionally or negligently done (like, out of the thousands and thousands that are won in the US every year ...) in which someone's family WAS brought back ... or someone's mobility restored, or head injury cured, etc. etc.?
Is the purpose of ANY lawsuit to bring anyone back to life ... or heal their injuries, or restore their abilities ... or is it rather to obtain compensation for the loss?
Might it also be that SOME lawsuits are launched out of an altruistic desire to spare others the pain or grief or loss that resulted from someone else's negligent or intentional act, by putting people likely to engage in such negligent or intentional acts on notice that they will be liable for damage that results?
Do we not imagine, in a case like the one in this thread, that the plaintiffs would fully acknowledge, and any award they received would fully recognize, that any negligent or intentional act by these defendants was only a partial cause of the damage, and that they were only partially liable to compensate for that damage? In this case, might we not indeed expect that since the crash happened immediately after the driver left the lot, the act by the defendants would not be found to have been causal, in this particular case? But what if his tank had been nearly empty, and the crash had occurred 20 miles later?
I'm expressing no opinion on this particular case -- simply saying that it's improper to reject these plaintiffs' claim for reasons that would not be applied to anyone else's claim. No one sues in order to bring a dead person back to life, or expects that any award received will make everything okay again.
The liability question here is an interesting one, and simply can't be answered "no" out of hand.
Do vendors of any things have responsibility to the public, or to particularly vulnerable individuals?
If an individual walked into a gun shoppe and said "I need some bullets so I can go outside and shoot my spouse who's standing on the sidewalk" (or "because I'm mad as hell and not going to take any more"), should the vendor have a responsibility to refuse to sell them? If a sidewalk peanut vendor is approached by someone saying "quick, here's a buck, gimme some peanuts for my kid who's violently allergic to them", what then?
I actually had just this drunk driver / gas station situation happen a few years ago, me being a bystander to the incident. There was a bunch of guys at a self-serve station on a secondary highway, late at night, gassing up a car. Interestingly, I recall that the car contained firearms -- I believe I must have known this because the driver said that they were going hunting, and claimed that he was not drinking, when I inquired. Given the obvious pissed-drunkenness of the other men milling around, I wasn't quite prepared to rely on his statement. I asked that the station owner call the police. He refused. I used the pay phone and did so; this was a bit complicated since I was in a rural area where 911 was not yet in effect, and I had to make more than one call. Ultimately, I reached the appropriate provincial police detachment, and was told that I was not the first caller about this car and its occupants, and they were already on the lookout for them. My memory is a little dim at this point, since it was at least 10 years ago, and I'm not sure why I didn't do a little more to waylay them. I suppose it was because they were large, male, drunk and in possession of firearms ...
In that case, since it was a self-serve, pay-after-pumping station, the owner could hardly have refused to sell the gas. And nobody's liable for not calling the police, that much is for sure.
But to intentionally turn over to someone the thing s/he needs in order to carry out a clearly expressed intention to do something illegal and dangerous to the public and/or to particular vulnerable individuals, I dunno.
What social value is advanced by *not* holding such vendors liable?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
