HOME OWNER SUED FOR JUNK MAIL …. this really wins some sort of twisted prize!
Some folks here in the UK see things like this, shake head then are quick to let me know (meaning no slight really) that it’s something they got from America.
One or two have expressed the opinion as, oh, just another bad thing you guys gave us.
Well, you guys didn’t have to accept it. In fact, you shouldn’t have. Most Americans don’t much care for this kind of thing either. But human nature being what it is, when some goofball or lazy and dishonest person thinks they can make easy money, and when there are lawyers who will take the case, this is what ya get.
Now then ... if the homeowner had something in that mail slot like a trap or anything that could do damage and it was planned, that’s a different ballgame. But this doesn’t read that way.
I think she and her mouthpiece should (if the homeowner not guilty of anything) be very severly punished.
She: All fingers both hands broken.
Lawyer: Removal of tongue.
See how easy the answer to this sort of problem is.
on 02/22/2008 at 02:38 AM
"A law expert said that householders had limited duties of care to people who went on to their property such as delivery people or postmen.
These duties of care include not having such things as bare electricity cables sticking out, but were not likely to extend to a letterbox providing it was a standard model.”
Ya know.... I think it shouldn’t matter whether it was the standard model or not. If it was intentionally put there to maim and kill it shouldn’t matter a bit.
Yes, that would make you liable if *the postman* was injured by it. But this is a woman who went onto another’s property uninvited, was it not? Correct me if I am wrong, the only person implied a welcome by the presence of the mail slot is the actual government employee who delivers the mail, and no one else. To say otherwise is the same as claiming that if the gas man is an idiot who kills himself dismantling *electrical* service by mistake, *I* am liable, is it not?
Yes, I have a responsibility to maintain a reasonable level of safety for equipment involving public services. BUT:If the postman blows himself to dollrags fiddling with the gas when neither I nor any company I have contracted with has authorized him to, *I* am not liable.
If a burglar loses the use of his hand due to a splinter wound from the wooden door he broke while illegally entering my home, *I* am not liable.
If someone who is not authorized by either myself or the postal sevice to use that mail slot CHOPS OFF THEIR ENTIRE FREAKIN ARM, *I* am not liable, nor is it my problem. The only thing I should hear about that is a request from the postal service saying they’d like to inspect my mail slot to see if it requires maintenance.In quest for loot, it seems that any excuse will serve.
One may be forgiven for observing that if half the lawyers were hanged to put some sense into the other half, we would still have too many of them by half.
But remember, this sort of outrage is only possible because a so-called “legal system” allows it to be possible. There is the real problem. The shysters and their looter clients are merely the symptoms.
By the way, was it Fouché who observed that if a problem can be executed, it is not truly the problem?
In the US, we have something called the “mailbox restriction”. That means that legally, ONLY the US Postal Service can put anything in your mailbox. Anyone else is breaking the law
Posted by bikerbob
02/22/2008 at 09:33 AM
She: All fingers both hands broken.
Lawyer: Removal of tongue.
See how easy the answer to this sort of problem is.I wonder if Peiper has been over there too long? It’s starting to sound like he’s in favor of sharia law. Though you’ve got to admit, it can come in “handy” sometimes.
