Brintintin

What many people don't seem to realize, including the jury and the judge in this case, is that this decision has far reaching consequences for just about any inherently dangerous activity. This type of "logical" approach to litigation can only lead to more and more outrageous lawsuits furthering individuals from their own responsibility. If you sit back and think about it, you can come up with hundreds of examples that might not end up not being the individuals fault.
- I live in an area that has nature reserves (privately owned) with many trails around with mountain lions and coyotes. So if one of these animals attacks me or one of my children, are the land owners responsible for not ridding the land of the animals and putting up a "safety fence" to prevent them from returning? Outrageous I know. Sounds stupid I know. You might even say the "it's an act of nature". But you can't deny it follows the "logic". Keep in mind that the accident that Mr. Osorio had was nothing more than and act of nature if you think about the physics.

So, my 22 year old son goes to a party and has a little too much to drink, JUST UNDER the legal limit. He gets in an accident and severely injures someone. Is he 35% responsible and the CAR MANUFACTURER 65% liable for not having an alcohol detecting/measuring device installed in the car? That technology is available you know.

If you think like an ambulance chasing lawyer, the possibilities are endless. Both of my examples are outrageous to say the least, but I think they fit the thought process that would be used.

This decision absolutely needs to be overturned.