One could argue that MJ was the hazardous condition and lured the kids and their parents.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Scott wrote: >> That is like saying that its not the bank robber's fault he robbed the >> bank, the morons kept the money there. > > From Wiki: > > Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a > landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on > the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on > the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to > appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. > > There is no set cut off point that defines youth. The courts will > evaluate each "child" on case by case basis to see if the "child" > qualifies as a youth. > > Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent > suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous > condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. > ----------------- > > So, were the children lured there or did the parent place them there? > In the case of MJ the parents placed them there. i.e, the children > weren't wandering by, say Neverland, and walked in. > > Thus, from the perspective that MJ was a hazard (and what parent > wouldn't think so), it's the parent's fault. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:299065 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
