Comments on: Drinking and eating can kill a friendship

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:48:59 +0000

Thanks to David Nieporent for his distinguishing “fortell” from “foreseeable”.

The bartender could foresee a trafic accident, so he drove home a drunk man. Asking the bartender to foresee a chocking incident is asking too much.

Those in the plaintif bar err when they base arguements on the notion that all risks are avoidable. Life and risk go together. We can, at best, manage our risks.

By: LAN3

LAN3 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:48:56 +0000

Good thing the man didn’t drive to the diner– not only was he too drunk to chew his food properly, but his family’s lawyer would be compelled to sue the city for failing to stop him and protect him from sandwiches.

Also, the lawyer should’ve checked the sandwich for the presense of condiments such as mustard or mayo; as a sandwich expert, I’d be willing to testify (for a fee) that there’s no greater choking hazard than an inadequately lubricated baguette. Sue Hellmanns/Best Foods just in case.

By: Rodney A Stanton

Rodney A Stanton — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:07:26 +0000

So funny it hurts! The truth is not always jpainfur but sometimes is ugly.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:30:01 +0000

Supremacy, I let your comment through once so I could explain this to you: “foretell” and “foreseeable” are not the same thing. If an auto mechanic does a shoddy job fixing a car’s brakes, he can’t predict when or where they will fail, or who will be hurt — but he can foresee that they may fail at some point. And since people usually use brakes when they need to stop their cars, he can foresee that their failure will cause someone to get injured.

I don’t know who will win the lottery, but it’s foreseeable that it will be won by someone at some point.

Foreseeability has been expanded by the courts beyond reasonability, in my opinion — but that doesn’t mean foreseeability itself is a strange concept.

You’re talking about certainty. But if an accident were certain, it wouldn’t be negligence; it would be a crime. The fact that it’s uncertain is what limits it to negligence. (Yes, I’m oversimplifying the legal tests somewhat for clarity.)

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:04:51 +0000

This case brought to mind the lesson of forseeability taught in the first torts case most of us studied, Palsgraf v. L.I.R.R..

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:54:58 +0000

David: Do you believe that defendants can predict accidents?

The lawyer does, since foreseeability is the core of duty. The lawyer believes in supernatural powers. Because foreseeability is the core of duty, all negligence tort claims violate the Establishment Clause.

I want the members of the Supreme Court to give me tonight’s Big Lotto numbers. Their chance of doing so correctly is the same as foreseeing an accident at the worst traffic intersection in the nation. Your heinous profession believes in the supernatural power of foretelling the future. It is out of control in its insurrection against the Establishment Clause.