The first kind is the case where someone says, with a straight face, that if you had only warned them they would not have come to some harm, but either the harm was totally obviously the expected result of their own stupidity or the warning would clearly not have made any difference.

For example, there’s the person who sued because his bunk bed had no warning that falling off the top bunk could cause injury. Gravity is a well-known hazard.

The second type are people who sue because of a product design choice that results in harm but where the design choice is sensible from an engineering point of view. Perhaps it would have been quite simple and inexpensive to prevent the particular harm that befell the litigant, but there might be hundreds of other ways a person might get harmed, and preventing all of them would triple the cost of the product or otherwise be impossible.

This is very common in automotive product liability suits. The claim in this case that these electrical wires should have be insulated seems like one nobody could make with a straight face.

Really the first type of suit is also an example of suits of the second type. You can’t warn about every possible thing that could happen, and if you try to, the really important warnings get lost in the unimportant ones.

You obviously aren’t familiar with previous winners of Darwin Awards; what this kid did barely rates at all on THAT scale of stupidity.

I have no sympathy for him or his mom, and the lawsuit needs to be thrown out. If you’re stupid enough to trespass on private property and climb a 25,000-volt tower, you should live with the consequences without having somebody else (or a lot of somebody elses) pay for it.

This boy should get the Darwin Award of the century.

I mean, the wires are elevated in the first place to prevent all but the most foolish from getting to them!

Bringing this suit shows the whole country where the kid got his lack of brainpower.