So I may have killed my friend's kitten today...

[SketchMaster]

It was 50/50. You shouldn't have let it run around and she should not have brought it to a party. All you had to do was find a box or something of the like, put a towel in it for the cat to stay in and none of this would have happened.

Also:

Originally posted by: masterxfob
stfu, you're an idiot.

Go to bed kid.

 

[Pepsi90919]

it's really your fault, i guess. but how do you put a price on a cat?

 

[Pepsi90919]

also, NEDM

 

[adairusmc]

You should have practiced the SSS method - Step, Shovel, and Shutup.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: letdown427
So what did it feel like to squash a kitten underfoot? 😀

I presume you were bare foot/only in socks? Just because you said:

when I stepped on something soft and warm

Obviously for it to be warm you were most probably bare foot...

Yes, I was barefoot. Sadly I can't really give you a better desciption than I did since I was mostly preoccupied with falling on my face. It felt like a ball of fluff with a small rod stuck in it, and it wiggled a little bit as my foot came down which scared the sh!t out of me and caused me to trip.

 

[dug777]

It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

I'd say tough luck. I'm serious. =) By the way total ignorance is not what the op did. A kitten is small yes? Then it's very hard to see. If your mowing your lawn the owner should not have even let it out. Hell you should have not mowed the lawn with a dog around. So it is partially your fault their. However still dogs are active and can/will move out of the way. So if it died cause it stood still then well good riddens. And I'm not angry. Analogies are never accurate.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: dug777

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Now what if he didn't tell her where to place the laptop, and she put it in a place nobody knew where the laptop was. Who's fault now?

 

[wetcat007]

Pets and parties don't mix it's her own fault. She wasn't watching a 3 month old kitten which probabily isn't going to be able to get out of the way of people very well. She should pay your hospital bill, send her a picture of your broken ankle and hospital bill. lol

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dug777

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Now what if he didn't tell her where to place the laptop, and she put it in a place nobody knew where the laptop was. Who's fault now?

Reasonable care is relative to the nature of the object, as has been pointed out, kittens are small and move fast, so obviously the level of care you'd be expected to take would be higher and specific to you or anyone else avidoing treading on the kitten.

On what you proposed there, you've entirely changed the facts, but in that case, the occupier has no knowledge of the laptop's whereabouts (and it's not like an animal, so they wouldn't be reasonably expected to take it's movement into account when taking care)...so a reasonble level of care would be much lower. I'd say it was her fault, and i doubt he'd be liable. In this case he's actually given her permission to let the cat roam his house.

@Praxis: you've managed to totally miss the point of my dog analogy, which is exactly the same as the facts in this case. Permission was given for an animal to roam around. No care was then taken to ensure the safety of the animal, and it was killed by the negligence of the occupier who failed to take any, let alone reasonable, care given the knowledge they had.

In this case, the OP told her she could let the cat run around. He is then required to act as a reasonable person would given that information. Which in most people's cases would be to either put it in another room with teh door shut, tell the chick to hold it, or tell her to take it home. Given he did none of those, a reasonable person would take extreme care as to where they stepped, which he did not.

 

[masterxfob]

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

i think you have a sidekick by the name of shadow9d9 following in your footsteps. while i find your preaching annoying as hell, your sidekick is ten times worse. i guess that's kind of a compliment? to you?

 

[ubercaffeinated]

Sue her for your ankle and the bloodstain and throw in a chiropractor visit. And say you had an allergic reaction to boot.

 

[masterxfob]

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
It was 50/50. You shouldn't have let it run around and she should not have brought it to a party. All you had to do was find a box or something of the like, put a towel in it for the cat to stay in and none of this would have happened.

Also:



Go to bed kid.

so the onus is on the OP to take care of the kitten? not the owner? i've said it before, and i'll say it again:

stfu, you're an idiot.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game that he had stepped on your point about the laptop would make some sense.........

Also, I don't think he was running through the home, being negligent and chasing anybody............I'm going to stop here- your logic is so full of holes I don't want to spend more time plugging them all......

To the OP: You mentioned at the beginning of the thread that this person was a friend. While in reality your friend was showboating her cat and does have some responsibility. She obviously cared for the animal. What a friend would do is realize that cat's are cheap as hell- offer your apology at least pretending to mean it, and take her out to get a new cat..........

If this was some expensive a$$ Digital Kitty 10,000 then I would reconsider offering to pay for it- though I can't see a non-exotic cat costing more then $100........(not a cat person myself though so I may be wrong)

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: masterxfob

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
It was 50/50. You shouldn't have let it run around and she should not have brought it to a party. All you had to do was find a box or something of the like, put a towel in it for the cat to stay in and none of this would have happened.

Also:



Go to bed kid.

so the onus is on the OP to take care of the kitten? not the owner? i've said it before, and i'll say it again:

stfu, you're an idiot.

:roll:

You're a puerile troll who's only argument is to reapeat what you think, without a shred of actual knowledge to back it up, and insult people. How about you try constructing a case for your point of view, rather than adopting the '5year old arguing over who's dad is teh best' approach as you've done so far...i'll conceded that at the moment that seems vastly beyond anything you've demonstrated of being capable of so far in this thread.

Let's recap:

it amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating factor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Reasonable care is relative to the nature of the object, as has been pointed out, kittens are small and move fast, so obviously the level of care you'd be expected to take would be higher and specific to you or anyone else avidoing treading on the kitten.

On what you proposed there, you've entirely changed the facts, but in that case, the occupier has no knowledge of the laptop's whereabouts (and it's not like an animal, so they wouldn't be reasonably expected to take it's movement into account when taking care)...so a reasonble level of care would be much lower. I'd say it was her fault, and i doubt he'd be liable. In this case he's actually given her permission to let the cat roam his house.

@Praxis: you've managed to totally miss the point of my dog analogy, which is exactly the same as the facts in this case. Permission was given for an animal to roam around. No care was then taken to ensure the safety of the animal, and it was killed by the negligence of the occupier who failed to take any, let alone reasonable, care given the knowledge they had.

In this case, the OP told her she could let the cat run around. He is then required to act as a reasonable person would given that information. Which in most people's cases would be to either put it in another room with teh door shut, tell the chick to hold it, or tell her to take it home. Given he did none of those, a reasonable person would take extreme care as to where they stepped, which he did not.

Ready for a grown-up discussion this time?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

Edited to add:

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game that he had stepped on your point about the laptop would make some sense.........

Also, I don't think he was running through the home, being negligent and chasing anybody............I'm going to stop here- your logic is so full of holes I don't want to spend more time plugging them all......

To the OP: You mentioned at the beginning of the thread that this person was a friend. While in reality your friend was showboating her cat and does have some responsibility. She obviously cared for the animal. What a friend would do is realize that cat's are cheap as hell- offer your apology at least pretending to mean it, and take her out to get a new cat..........

If this was some expensive a$$ Digital Kitty 10,000 then I would reconsider offering to pay for it- though I can't see a non-exotic cat costing more then $100........(not a cat person myself though so I may be wrong)

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

Edited to add:

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game that he had stepped on your point about the laptop would make some sense.........

Also, I don't think he was running through the home, being negligent and chasing anybody............I'm going to stop here- your logic is so full of holes I don't want to spend more time plugging them all......

To the OP: You mentioned at the beginning of the thread that this person was a friend. While in reality your friend was showboating her cat and does have some responsibility. She obviously cared for the animal. What a friend would do is realize that cat's are cheap as hell- offer your apology at least pretending to mean it, and take her out to get a new cat..........

If this was some expensive a$$ Digital Kitty 10,000 then I would reconsider offering to pay for it- though I can't see a non-exotic cat costing more then $100........(not a cat person myself though so I may be wrong)

:laugh:

:beer: That's the first laugh i've got out of this thread mate 🙂

*dug777 discovers (yet again) the futility of having a discussion with people on internet message boards, and vows to stop doing it (yet again)*

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

My problem with your analogies is that they are straw man analogies. These RARELY work and in the case of yours already have multiple discrepancies between your analogy and the actual situation.......

For one- you claim standard of care would increase for something that moves. That may be true- however, your example involved the laptop being broken due to "running through the living room chasing somone, and stepping on it, breaking it." ..........If your example/analogy was rooted in fact and good logic- why were the OP's actions of simply walking down a flight of stairs exxagerrated this grossly?

 

[BillyBatson]

i would not pay, it was a damn accident and why would she let loose such a small animal with a bunch of ppl aroundpossibly drinking. it isn't like you fed it something wrong or threw it or something, it was an accident

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

Edited to add:

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game that he had stepped on your point about the laptop would make some sense.........

Also, I don't think he was running through the home, being negligent and chasing anybody............I'm going to stop here- your logic is so full of holes I don't want to spend more time plugging them all......

To the OP: You mentioned at the beginning of the thread that this person was a friend. While in reality your friend was showboating her cat and does have some responsibility. She obviously cared for the animal. What a friend would do is realize that cat's are cheap as hell- offer your apology at least pretending to mean it, and take her out to get a new cat..........

If this was some expensive a$$ Digital Kitty 10,000 then I would reconsider offering to pay for it- though I can't see a non-exotic cat costing more then $100........(not a cat person myself though so I may be wrong)

:laugh:

:beer: That's the first laugh i've got out of this thread mate 🙂

*dug777 discovers (yet again) the futility of having a discussion with people on internet message boards, and vows to stop doing it (yet again)*

Please- do us all a favor then, and do not have a discussion as you just highlighted half of your own ridiculous post which you tried passing off as a comparable situation to what happened with the OP.........

Here's an idea: look at your post- use sense and judgement to realize your analogy does not add up, and then proceed to leave this discussion as you've wisely already thought of doing........

 

[masterxfob]

Originally posted by: dug777
Ready for a grown-up discussion this time?

first off the person i told to 'stfu' made a rather dense remark. the second time was because the person wasn't involved in the exchange and offered nothing to it.

as fas as a grown up discussion, you're obviously living in a fairy tale world and it would be quite impossible to argue with you and your jesus like, bible thumping, preaching of the law. if you and your law buddies want to talk like that and continue filing lawsuits over such frivolous matters, be my guest. fact of the matter is, most people do not think in that crazy convoluted world of law that you do and most people probably don't care for it.

most people like to think in terms of common sense. some have different views, whether the OP pays all expenses, or whether he tells the girl to flog herself, but it's sure more refreshing than that drivel you're preaching.

so while i don't really have a problem with you in most other ATOT topics, this is one that you really do come off rather annoying. if i'm in the wrong, then so be it. have the last word, i'm out. :beer:

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

My problem with your analogies is that they are straw man analogies. These RARELY work and in the case of yours already have multiple discrepancies between your analogy and the actual situation.......

For one- you claim standard of care would increase for something that moves. That may be true- however, your example involved the laptop being broken due to "running through the living room chasing somone, and stepping on it, breaking it." ..........If your example/analogy was rooted in fact and good logic- why were the OP's actions of simply walking down a flight of stairs exxagerrated this grossly?

The laptop example was just to use a common property item, attempting to highlight how breaking other people's property in your own home in that scenario would still be your fault. It wouldn't matter if you simply forgot that you'd told the person they could put it there, walked out to get a beer & stepped on it...

The dog one is essentially identical to the one here, except there's a dog, and a ride on mower. Permission was still granted, the host had knowledge and failed to act reasonably given that knowledge.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: masterxfob

Originally posted by: dug777
Ready for a grown-up discussion this time?

first off the person i told to 'stfu' made a rather dense remark. the second time was because the person wasn't involved in the exchange and offered nothing to it.

as fas as a grown up discussion, you're obviously living in a fairy tale world and it would be quite impossible to argue with you and your jesus like, bible thumping, preaching of the law. if you and your law buddies want to talk like that and continue filing lawsuits over such frivolous matters, be my guest. fact of the matter is, most people do not think in that crazy convoluted world of law that you do and most people probably don't care for it.

most people like to think in terms of common sense. some have different views, whether the OP pays all expenses, or whether he tells the girl to flog herself, but it's sure more refreshing than that drivel you're preaching.

so while i don't really have a problem with you in most other ATOT topics, this is one that you really do come off rather annoying. if i'm in the wrong, then so be it. have the last word, i'm out. :beer:

:beer:

I fail to see how i'm a bible thumper, i'm preaching, or that i'm advocating lawsuits, i'm simply *attempting* to correct the prevelant view in this thread that the OP is entirely blameless and in no way responsible for his own actions thanks to the silly chick's lack of judgement. The real world isn't like that, for good or for bad. Anyways, we'll clearly have to agree to disagree 🙂

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts 😉

Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.

I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.

Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?

The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.

Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......

So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........

Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........

😕

You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move 😉

My problem with your analogies is that they are straw man analogies. These RARELY work and in the case of yours already have multiple discrepancies between your analogy and the actual situation.......

For one- you claim standard of care would increase for something that moves. That may be true- however, your example involved the laptop being broken due to "running through the living room chasing somone, and stepping on it, breaking it." ..........If your example/analogy was rooted in fact and good logic- why were the OP's actions of simply walking down a flight of stairs exxagerrated this grossly?

The laptop example was just to use a common property item, attempting to highlight how breaking other people's property in your own home in that scenario would still be your fault. It wouldn't matter if you simply forgot that you'd told the person they could put it there, walked out to get a beer & stepped on it...

The dog one is essentially identical to the one here, except there's a dog, and a ride on mower. Permission was still granted, the host had knowledge and failed to act reasonably given that knowledge.

Give up on the laptop example- it was not a proper analogy....the evidence of that is you've had to change the example to something that still doesn't compare because laptops don't move......
Your claim is that this means more caution is warranted- my claim is that while your claim about the additional caution may be true, it also puts additional responsibility on the owner of the property to take reasonable care to protect it as it isn't a static "object" and has a mind of it's own........
What's the common theme here? Your analogy was wrong and even you know it......

The dog in the backyard is also not a proper analogy because people have different definitions of what's reasonable.........Depending on the size of the yard it may be perfectly reasonable to mow your lawn while a dog's outside. What if the individual lives on 60 acres? If you hit the dog you wouldn't be negligent for mowing the lawn when the dog was outside- you would be negligent for not paying attention to your surroundings......

Yes, it's possible the OP is responsible for the death of the kitten- (and I've stated I think the right thing for him to do is pay for it unless it's some exotic/rare cat which should have been safekept better by it's owner) just like the individual used in your analogies would be responsible. Other then that you are comparing apples to oranges and those analogies of yours do not prove anything.........