X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:59:31 -0400
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Regarding an asinine response

>First, let's see evidence of adjudication of a case in which an
>intruder sued a homeowner after tripping on his or her rug.

>Second, if there ever has been such a case, which I doubt, then
>what possible relevance could it have to the issue that Missy
>and KAT raised?

Well - who would have thought that a fairly interesting question
about the use of deadly force to protect one's home (or residence)
or property would have generated so much heat and so little light.
I will answer the last question quoted above first since it is
easiest:  None - none whatsoever.

There was a case much like the one described above that was
quite the talk of the town where I used to live in New Jersey.
There was a family who had lived in the county for generations,
and whose members were for the most part poor.  One particular
household of them had a single electrical outlet in their home
from which a spider's web of extension cords emanated.  Some
burglar ( some stupid burglar who should have known that there
was nothing of value within ) broke and entered their house,
tripped over an extension cord, fell down the stairs and broke
a few bones on the way.  Some time later, on the advice of his
lawyer he brought suit against the family to pay for his
injuries and "pain and suffering".  The family's lawyer advised
them to settle out of court since a more or less affordable
deal was available from the burglar's side.  The lawyer felt
that the court would rule in favor of the family but that there
was sufficient risk to settle out of court and risk the
potentially unfavorable outcome.

So it is my assumption that cases of this nature are initiated
without the intent for "adjudication".  ( I have no evidence
for this claim, so sue me  ;-)   )  In this sense such suits
are the somewhat the equivalent of blackmail.  That is, the
intent is to get the sue-ee to pay to avoid the risk and
expense of the lawsuit.  Hmmm, sounds somewhat like insurance
but that's another issue.

So perhaps with this as a starting point we could abandon
the now tiresome slugfest which prompted me to write this
post and begin talking about ('scuse me Carl,  *writing*, um,
no, *typing* about), er *typing* about another fairly
interesting topic:  Tort reform.

Any takers?

Steve

PS -  I will be leaving Thursday morning for the Philadelphia
Folk Festival in beautiful Schwenksville, PA.  Though I will
set nomail tomorrow morning I will ask someone to forward
any mail on this topic, or directed at me in general.  If
anyone is attending (the folk fest, that is) either send
mail before Thursday 8:30 am  or look for the campsite
labelled "Bandanna Republic" - perhaps we could meet for a
chat.  We are very generous with beer.   ;-)
I'll log in Monday afternoon to see what's up.

PPS-  I had a double cheeseburger from Wendy's for lunch.  It
      was alright I guess.  The fries were crispy though.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU