• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Another screwed up lawsuit this one by cop

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cardiac

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,086
6
81
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: cardiac
Nowhere did I say that I agree with her suing the family. I am just giving a picture of how most municipalities treat their public safety people, even when they get hurt on the job......

Bob
Nice change of tone between your first incredibly stupid post and this less but still stupid post. The parents just pretty much lost their fucking child and all she (and you) can think about is how to complain more loudly than the next person about your benefits. You've had your job for 26 years so it must not be that big of a problem you asshole.
Great name calling. And what background do you have that you are such a public safety expert?

However, nowhere did I ever say she was right in suing. I'm just saying that so many public safety people think that they are going to be OK if something happens to them on the job, and when it comes down to it, they are hung out to dry.

Guys, everyone knows the hazards of the job. No one on my dept would sue a patient/victims family. (I hope not). There are even laws in place that keep a fire dept or individual from a fire dept. from suing a homeowner if injured in a fire. (Unless foul play was in place).

Bob
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: cardiac
Nowhere did I say that I agree with her suing the family. I am just giving a picture of how most municipalities treat their public safety people, even when they get hurt on the job......

Bob
Nice change of tone between your first incredibly stupid post and this less but still stupid post. The parents just pretty much lost their fucking child and all she (and you) can think about is how to complain more loudly than the next person about your benefits. You've had your job for 26 years so it must not be that big of a problem you asshole.
Great name calling. And what background do you have that you are such a public safety expert?

However, nowhere did I ever say she was right in suing. I'm just saying that so many public safety people think that they are going to be OK if something happens to them on the job, and when it comes down to it, they are hung out to dry.

Guys, everyone knows the hazards of the job. No one on my dept would sue a patient/victims family. (I hope not). There are even laws in place that keep a fire dept or individual from a fire dept. from suing a homeowner if injured in a fire. (Unless foul play was in place).

Bob

ok then why bring up that you have crappy benifits? it does not matter.


so it was just to whine and complaine that you have sucky benifits? nobody cares in this thread.



 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,713
10
56
Originally posted by: KK
I hope if that cop is still on duty, that someone puts a bullet in her frickin head. And as for the stupid ass fvckin lawyer, well I hope someone puts a bullet in his frickin head too. That would make the world a better place if these 2 dipsh1ts were 6 feet under.
congratulations. way to be even more ridiculous than this lawsuit.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,062
90
91
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: cardiac
Nowhere did I say that I agree with her suing the family. I am just giving a picture of how most municipalities treat their public safety people, even when they get hurt on the job......

Bob
Nice change of tone between your first incredibly stupid post and this less but still stupid post. The parents just pretty much lost their fucking child and all she (and you) can think about is how to complain more loudly than the next person about your benefits. You've had your job for 26 years so it must not be that big of a problem you asshole.
Great name calling. And what background do you have that you are such a public safety expert?

However, nowhere did I ever say she was right in suing. I'm just saying that so many public safety people think that they are going to be OK if something happens to them on the job, and when it comes down to it, they are hung out to dry.

Guys, everyone knows the hazards of the job. No one on my dept would sue a patient/victims family. (I hope not). There are even laws in place that keep a fire dept or individual from a fire dept. from suing a homeowner if injured in a fire. (Unless foul play was in place).

Bob

ok then why bring up that you have crappy benifits? it does not matter.


so it was just to whine and complaine that you have sucky benifits? nobody cares in this thread.
Exactly my point. No one gives a shit about you or your lousy benefits since it is completely your choice. If you don't like it then quit or STFU.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,062
90
91
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: KK
I hope if that cop is still on duty, that someone puts a bullet in her frickin head. And as for the stupid ass fvckin lawyer, well I hope someone puts a bullet in his frickin head too. That would make the world a better place if these 2 dipsh1ts were 6 feet under.
congratulations. way to be even more ridiculous than this lawsuit.
It is annoying though if you think about how this woman is acting right now is probably how she acts most of the time - always looking for the easy way out. I very much dislike people who act like that, not that I think they should be killed, but I wouldn't really feel that bad if she happened to die.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,383
9,199
126
So I guess if my house ever catches on fire, that I better think twice before calling 911 because one of the firefighters could get injured while doing their job and sue me. :roll:
 

cardiac

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,086
6
81
Originally posted by: Vic
So I guess if my house ever catches on fire, that I better think twice before calling 911 because one of the firefighters could get injured while doing their job and sue me. :roll:
Did you read my last post? No, even if you are stupid enough to accidently ignite it yourself, you can't be sued..... (All 50 states)...
 

cardiac

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,086
6
81
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: cardiac
Nowhere did I say that I agree with her suing the family. I am just giving a picture of how most municipalities treat their public safety people, even when they get hurt on the job......

Bob
Nice change of tone between your first incredibly stupid post and this less but still stupid post. The parents just pretty much lost their fucking child and all she (and you) can think about is how to complain more loudly than the next person about your benefits. You've had your job for 26 years so it must not be that big of a problem you asshole.
Great name calling. And what background do you have that you are such a public safety expert?

However, nowhere did I ever say she was right in suing. I'm just saying that so many public safety people think that they are going to be OK if something happens to them on the job, and when it comes down to it, they are hung out to dry.

Guys, everyone knows the hazards of the job. No one on my dept would sue a patient/victims family. (I hope not). There are even laws in place that keep a fire dept or individual from a fire dept. from suing a homeowner if injured in a fire. (Unless foul play was in place).

Bob

ok then why bring up that you have crappy benifits? it does not matter.


so it was just to whine and complaine that you have sucky benifits? nobody cares in this thread.
Exactly my point. No one gives a shit about you or your lousy benefits since it is completely your choice. If you don't like it then quit or STFU.

I wasn't whining about the bennies. I was trying to explain why she may have done what she did.

I'm glad you feel that way about public service people.

What do you do for a living? I'm sure you're some early 20's snot-nosed kid fresh out of college who doesn't have a clue....

This was my last post in this thread.....
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: cardiac
Nowhere did I say that I agree with her suing the family. I am just giving a picture of how most municipalities treat their public safety people, even when they get hurt on the job......

Bob
Nice change of tone between your first incredibly stupid post and this less but still stupid post. The parents just pretty much lost their fucking child and all she (and you) can think about is how to complain more loudly than the next person about your benefits. You've had your job for 26 years so it must not be that big of a problem you asshole.
Great name calling. And what background do you have that you are such a public safety expert?

However, nowhere did I ever say she was right in suing. I'm just saying that so many public safety people think that they are going to be OK if something happens to them on the job, and when it comes down to it, they are hung out to dry.

Guys, everyone knows the hazards of the job. No one on my dept would sue a patient/victims family. (I hope not). There are even laws in place that keep a fire dept or individual from a fire dept. from suing a homeowner if injured in a fire. (Unless foul play was in place).

Bob

ok then why bring up that you have crappy benifits? it does not matter.


so it was just to whine and complaine that you have sucky benifits? nobody cares in this thread.
Exactly my point. No one gives a shit about you or your lousy benefits since it is completely your choice. If you don't like it then quit or STFU.

I wasn't whining about the bennies. I was trying to explain why she may have done what she did.

I'm glad you feel that way about public service people.

What do you do for a living?

This was my last post in this thread.....

i can tell you why she did it. she is a greedy bitch and sees a way to make some cash.

we have nto said anything about publick service people. We have said that they have it rough. but you come in whinning and makeing excuses for this pile of trash is annoying.

if you have bad benifits tough shit. find another job.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,383
9,199
126
Originally posted by: cardiac
Originally posted by: Vic
So I guess if my house ever catches on fire, that I better think twice before calling 911 because one of the firefighters could get injured while doing their job and sue me. :roll:
Did you read my last post? No, even if you are stupid enough to accidently ignite it yourself, you can't be sued..... (All 50 states)...
Your last post wasn't relevant to my comment as this particular suit in question -- if by some twisted miracle is successful -- would create a new precedent.

Suppose I'm being robbed. I call 911, the police arrive, and one of them trips and breaks his leg on my doorstep in the course of his duties. He sues and wins (possibly an amount even greater that what I could have been robbed for). Why then should anyone want to call emergency services?
 

RKS

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
3
81
I wonder if Florida still recognizes the firefighters rule?

This doctrine prohibited emergency responders, such as police officers, firefighters and rescue squad members, from filing civil lawsuits against property owners for personal injuries they sustained while responding to emergencies, even if the property owner?s negligence caused the emergency responder?s injuries. This doctrine never precluded emergency responders, whether salaried or volunteer, from filing a workers? compensation claim for an injury sustained during an emergency call. However, emergency responders were not allowed to seek compensation for their injuries from a property owner, even where the property owner?s carelessness caused injury.
 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,387
0
71
Originally posted by: RKS
I wonder if Florida still recognizes the firefighters rule?

This doctrine prohibited emergency responders, such as police officers, firefighters and rescue squad members, from filing civil lawsuits against property owners for personal injuries they sustained while responding to emergencies, even if the property owner?s negligence caused the emergency responder?s injuries. This doctrine never precluded emergency responders, whether salaried or volunteer, from filing a workers? compensation claim for an injury sustained during an emergency call. However, emergency responders were not allowed to seek compensation for their injuries from a property owner, even where the property owner?s carelessness caused injury.

If this is the case then she does not have any legal recourse. right?



 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: KK
I hope if that cop is still on duty, that someone puts a bullet in her frickin head. And as for the stupid ass fvckin lawyer, well I hope someone puts a bullet in his frickin head too. That would make the world a better place if these 2 dipsh1ts were 6 feet under.
congratulations. way to be even more ridiculous than this lawsuit.
You might think it ridiculous, but that's how I feel. It pisses me off to see the bullsh1t people are capable of. And as I said before, the world would be better with these two dipsh1ts 6 feet under.
 

RKS

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
3
81
Originally posted by: tyler811
Originally posted by: RKS
I wonder if Florida still recognizes the firefighters rule?

This doctrine prohibited emergency responders, such as police officers, firefighters and rescue squad members, from filing civil lawsuits against property owners for personal injuries they sustained while responding to emergencies, even if the property owner?s negligence caused the emergency responder?s injuries. This doctrine never precluded emergency responders, whether salaried or volunteer, from filing a workers? compensation claim for an injury sustained during an emergency call. However, emergency responders were not allowed to seek compensation for their injuries from a property owner, even where the property owner?s carelessness caused injury.

If this is the case then she does not have any legal recourse. right?
If Florida recognizes it, then the cop can't sue the parents.

 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,387
0
71
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: tyler811
Originally posted by: RKS
I wonder if Florida still recognizes the firefighters rule?

This doctrine prohibited emergency responders, such as police officers, firefighters and rescue squad members, from filing civil lawsuits against property owners for personal injuries they sustained while responding to emergencies, even if the property owner?s negligence caused the emergency responder?s injuries. This doctrine never precluded emergency responders, whether salaried or volunteer, from filing a workers? compensation claim for an injury sustained during an emergency call. However, emergency responders were not allowed to seek compensation for their injuries from a property owner, even where the property owner?s carelessness caused injury.

If this is the case then she does not have any legal recourse. right?
If Florida recognizes it, then the cop can't sue the parents.

Seems to me that all states would
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
65
91
As an emergency responder isn't she trained to be able to safely approach even the most dangerous of situations and with the knowledge to be able to transverse some of the most hostile terrains?

But, a puddle on the floor is what took her down.
 

RKS

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
3
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
AFAIK IANAL :) the firefighter's rule is folklore. Here was the first hit I quickly looked up http://www.legalreader.com/archives/000872.html

In civil court almost anything goes.

From Bennis v. State Chem. Mfg. Co., 682 So. 2d 574:

The common law firefighter's rule limited the duty owed firefighters and police officers in discharging their duties to the duty owed to a licensee; the purpose of the rule was to permit individuals requiring assistance to summon aid without pausing to consider whether they will be held liable for consequences which, in most cases, are beyond their control.

The firefighter's rule does not preclude recovery under all circumstances in which a firefighter is injured in the discharge of his or her duties; instead, once the firefighter's presence on the premises is known or reasonably anticipated by the owner, the owner has the obligation to refrain from wanton negligence or willful conduct and to warn the licensee of defects or conditions known to the owner to be dangerous when such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee and when there is reasonable opportunity to give such warning.

While the firefighter's rule precludes recovery for acts of simple negligence leading to the very risk necessitating the firefighter's presence, it does not bar recovery for independent acts of misconduct or for failure to warn of a hidden danger when there was knowledge of the danger and an opportunity to warn.

So at the most this was simple negligence therefore the suit will probably fail. No one can predict what happens if it gets to a jury.


After a little more research it looks like Florida abolished the rule but the same level of duty remains for the homeowners.


§ 112.182. "Firefighter rule" abolished


(1) A firefighter or properly identified law enforcement officer who lawfully enters upon the premises of another in the discharge of his or her duty occupies the status of an invitee. The common-law rule that such a firefighter or law enforcement officer occupies the status of a licensee is hereby abolished.

(2) It is not the intent of this section to increase or diminish the duty of care owed by property owners to invitees. Property owners shall be liable to invitees pursuant to this section only when the property owner negligently fails to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition or negligently fails to correct a dangerous condition of which the property owner either knew or should have known by the use of reasonable care or negligently fails to warn the invitee of a dangerous condition about which the property owner had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the invitee.

edit: I believe she has dropped the suit.



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY