Comments on: Do Acts of God Still Exist?

By: Nathan S. Lord

Nathan S. Lord — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:30:45 +0000

Redistributing other peoples’ money is the new great american pastime. Witness the gambling fever that has overwhelmed many areas. Watch popular television as often as you can (without getting sick–turn it off when you feel nauseous)

By: Gene

Gene — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:09:13 +0000

I think we are about to see an explosion of litigation, as more and more lawyers get into these bizarre lawsuits. I can think of three areas to watch:
-as skin cancer rates increase, manufacturers of sun block 9and tanning salons) ought to be wary
-ski areas: no longer will disclaimers 9about the dangers of the sport0 protect owners against lawsuits
-manufacturers of alcoholic beverages..this looks to fertile ground.
yes, the Hurrican Katrina flooding of new Orleans will keep many lawyers employed-especially if one can sue the US Government/FEMA, whatever. apparently, natural disasters are not something to be accpeted-if the government fails to warn, they can be sued.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:16:26 +0000

Keep an eye on post-Katrina litigation over the next few years. Lawyers in Louisiana were chomping at the bit when the Army Corps of Engineers dug up the foundations pilings for the infamous 17th Street levee, only to be disappointed when their measurements turned out to be consistent with specifications. Those attorneys had a “damn-it’s-an-act-of-God” look in their eyes that day.

Of course, that may not stop anyone, and the Corps may have in fact been derelict in its duty. But even so, all this begs the question why state and local officials would so enthusiastically entrust their constituents’s fates in people whose track record is spotty and whose attention may have been less keen than those who would be effected by failure. And once that fateful decision was made, why didn’t state and local officials more zealously monitor the corps’s work?

Never mind zealously – why didn’t they monitor the levees at all?

By: Tony Goodhew

Tony Goodhew — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:13:50 +0000

It may not be much consolation but I still believe in accidents – God knows after 32 years of rugby I’ve had my share 🙂

The most insidious thing about this to me is the fact that the efforts to provide “due care” are being used as evidence to convince a jury that things were dangerous.

In your example I could imagine the lawyers saying that, because you checked for dangerous trees you knew there could be a problem and rather than removing all trees or stapling a warning to the forehead of everyone using the park you didn’t do enough to make sure that people were safe.

Personally I think we’re seeing a return of the “diminished responsibility” theory except that the victim is now using it instead of the defendant.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:38:41 +0000

“in effect does the accident itself serve as prima facia evidence that due care was not exercised, even if no one can think of what else could be done?”

There have been plenty of lawsuits (many of them WON) chronicaled on this very site that match that description perfectly.

Actually, there have been several lawsuits worse than that – an additional action is suggested, but it would have caused far MORE harm… just to other people. (Quick example: plate glass in vehicle windows. Also, there was a case about how easily car seats crumple… when the other 6 passengers were uninjured specifically BECAUSE the seats crumpled thusly.)

By: Greedy Trial Lawyer

Greedy Trial Lawyer — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:43:39 +0000

If A Tree Falls In The Woods Is Warren Meyer Liable? Warren Meyer at Overlawyered starts with a fair question, Do Acts of God Still Exist? He then provides a hypothetical scenario and invites comments. My comment i...

By: Greedy Trial Lawyer

Greedy Trial Lawyer — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:33:15 +0000