Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwitch
..... This is what is at the very heart of "attractive nuisance" lawsuits. The injured had a right to sue. The developer ultimately has an obligation to protect people from their own stupidity (what a sad statement that is). The ones harmed are those who do respect the buffalo as the magnificent animals they are. We lose. The stupid ones (and their attorneys) win. I honestly can't imagine a judge letting a class action suit go forward against those injured.
Those who are attorneys or who have studied the law, what do you think -- does such a class action suit have even a buffalo horn to stand on?
|
The question is always whether there is a reasonable expectation of care and protection against a known or perceived hazard. As an example - fencing is required (a certain height and type) around a swimming pool specifically because of a pool being considered a known hazard. So, does the landowner have a "duty of care" in this regard, was the "duty" breached by neglect or insufficiency in any manner, and lastly, what "damages" were indeed incurred?
As far as the suggested class action suit, my guess is that would probably hinge on whether the homeowners' deeds (including covenants and restrictions) have a "buffalo" provision. If they don't, then (pardon the pun) the "chips" have already fallen......