IF a man breaks into your home, and he is injured, and takes you to court, how can justice makes you paid for his injuries ?
Is it common sense?
Or is it that property should be abolished? And the person who lives in the hom has the right to let people stay or not?
What is it about property? That it can turn against you?
only liberal democRAT judges would do that. why take the chance. if a guy breaks into your house and injures himself, you need to finish the job of injuring him so he cannot sue. dead men tell no tales and you were only defending your property.
Jrnymn - If you do just a teeny tiny bit of research you will find that this case never occurred, and that most of this stuff is made up by lobbying groups and sent in emails. But some strange results can and do occur in civil suits, which cease to look so strange when you understand the principles involved. “Tresspasser” is not the cut-and-dried concept it appears to be. Neither is “contributory negligence”. Sometimes these “unacceptable” results point out the need to tighten up the wording of statutes. Sometimes they point out that legal definitions are better left vague than made useless.
However, Imp is correct. Many a law enforcement official (cop) will give you the same advice, off the record, at least.
By the way, most homeowner’s policies have a sort of “no questions asked” clause for personal injury. It’s usually a small amount, but the clause is written such that blame, or liability is not an issue. Someone, anyone, slips and falls, and they can make a claim. The few times that this is abused make little difference, in the big picture.
I suspected that the site was mostly for giggles. As to doing a teeny bit of research to verify it. . . I didn’t think it was even worth the teeny bit of time it would take.