If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(West Virginia Record)   If you get drunk, stick fireworks up your butt and fall off your dormitory balcony, don't sue the college. It's really not their fault you're so stupid   (wvrecord.com) divider line 61
    More: Amusing, Louis Helmburg, bottle rockets, Marshall University, causes of action, compensatory damages  
•       •       •

7513 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 1:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 10:12:42 AM

Mock26: I have been seriously drunk more than a few times in my life and done some really stupid things (such as climbing the external ladders and walkways to get to the top of a factory) but I have never been so drunk as to want to shove things up my butt let alone shove flammable things up my butt!


That's why people like you and me can get drunk together: no threat of wierd butt-shoving and stuffing things up in there. It's seriously NEVER crossed my mind to stick anything up there, save for a few pennies.

Why people? WHY?????
 
2013-06-14 10:25:32 AM

Combustion: Mock26: I have been seriously drunk more than a few times in my life and done some really stupid things (such as climbing the external ladders and walkways to get to the top of a factory) but I have never been so drunk as to want to shove things up my butt let alone shove flammable things up my butt!

That's why people like you and me can get drunk together: no threat of wierd butt-shoving and stuffing things up in there. It's seriously NEVER crossed my mind to stick anything up there, save for a few pennies.

Why people? WHY?????


O_o
 
2013-06-14 11:17:56 AM
Rectum? Damn near killed'um!
 
2013-06-14 12:18:45 PM
rocket burns ass
sphincter clenches tight
rocket goes no where
repeat
 
2013-06-14 12:49:50 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Mock26: The text of  the lawsuit alleges that the deck was 3-4 feet high; never had a railing; and should have had a railing per local building codes.  That's negligence per se.

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Pleadings/Bottle%20Rocke t. pdf

Negligence under common law need not rely on building codes.  Frat failed to take reasonable care for invitees' safety by allowing underage drinking and dangerous activities.   "Ultra-hazardous activity" is also claimed, making this a strict liability action. There are no circumstances under which it's reasonable to permit underage drinking or shooting bottle rockets out of anuses.

What the lawsuit alleges and what it actually was might not be the same thing.

As for underage drinking, how does the frat's breaking of that law directly affect him?  The law is one that prohibits an activity (minors drinking), it is not a law that protects others (such as a law against drunk driving).  I seriously doubt the guy has a case against the fraternity for allowing underage drinking.  It really is not a negligent act.  Illegal, yes, but not negligent.  The frat can still be in trouble, but it would have to be the City or the State pressing charges.

And did the fraternity really "permit" this guy to try and shoot a bottle rocket out of his butt?  No.  The guy went ahead and did it.  Someone doing something stupid does not mean that those around him expressly allowed it.  For example, if I am having a party at my house and one of the guests hauls off and punches another I am now responsible for what he did.  I did not "permit" him to throw the punch.  He just did it.  So you cannot really hold the frat responsible for this guy's failed butt rocket.

0/10 - ignorance must be feigned credibly.


Not trolling at all.  I just do not see this kid as having much of a case against the fraternity.  Probably the only possible case he has is the lack of a railing.  The case of the frat having underaged drinking really has no bearing on this kid's injuries.  Use a litmus test on this.  If everyone at the party was over 21 and the exact same thing happened would the serving of alcohol be classified as negligent (as the other poster claimed)?  No.  It would not.  So yeah, the frat did break the law in regards to serving alcohol to minors, but that is an unrelated issue.
 
2013-06-14 01:58:41 PM
If the first idea you get when you're drunk is to shove stuff up your ass, you might have some latent homosexuality issues to deal with.
 
2013-06-14 03:41:32 PM

Mock26: Not trolling at all.  I just do not see this kid as having much of a case against the fraternity.  Probably the only possible case he has is the lack of a railing.  The case of the frat having underaged drinking really has no bearing on this kid's injuries.  Use a litmus test on this.  If everyone at the party was over 21 and the exact same thing happened would the serving of alcohol be classified as negligent (as the other poster claimed)?  No.  It would not.  So yeah, the frat did break the law in regards to serving alcohol to minors, but that is an unrelated issue.


This is about due diligence. If you own or otherwise have control over a house / business / structure etc. you have a duty of care over anyone who might be there. This duty extends even to people who are not invited. This is why you are liable for slip and fall injuries in the winter if you don't shovel your steps.

In this case there was a party in a frat house. The frat has a duty of care to all persons attending that party to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken. Such precautions would include railings, appropriate fire detection and suppression systems, ensuring that the safe capacity of the house is not exceeded, etc. In most jurisdictions this extends to monitoring the behavior of guests, including drinking. For example, depending on where you live you can be held liable if you serve alcohol at a party and someone leaves drunk and gets into an accident.

The underage drinking may not be the issue, but if the frat hosting the party allowed people to drink to the point they posed a hazard to themselves or others, then they failed in their duty of care. If someone is drunk enough to shoot bottle rockets out of their anus I don't think you'll have a hard time convincing either a judge or jury that this person was a hazard.

With respect to the lack of a railing, even if building codes don't require one, the courts can still find you at fault for not having one depending on the conditions present. A good lawyer will invoke the argument of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) if there are other conditions (such as rough terrain like a rock garden) beside or near the deck which a reasonable person should recognize as a hazard.
 
2013-06-14 05:19:18 PM

Tyrosine: Mock26: Not trolling at all.  I just do not see this kid as having much of a case against the fraternity.  Probably the only possible case he has is the lack of a railing.  The case of the frat having underaged drinking really has no bearing on this kid's injuries.  Use a litmus test on this.  If everyone at the party was over 21 and the exact same thing happened would the serving of alcohol be classified as negligent (as the other poster claimed)?  No.  It would not.  So yeah, the frat did break the law in regards to serving alcohol to minors, but that is an unrelated issue.


This is about due diligence. If you own or otherwise have control over a house / business / structure etc. you have a duty of care over anyone who might be there. This duty extends even to people who are not invited. This is why you are liable for slip and fall injuries in the winter if you don't shovel your steps.

In this case there was a party in a frat house. The frat has a duty of care to all persons attending that party to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken. Such precautions would include railings, appropriate fire detection and suppression systems, ensuring that the safe capacity of the house is not exceeded, etc. In most jurisdictions this extends to monitoring the behavior of guests, including drinking. For example, depending on where you live you can be held liable if you serve alcohol at a party and someone leaves drunk and gets into an accident.

The underage drinking may not be the issue, but if the frat hosting the party allowed people to drink to the point they posed a hazard to themselves or others, then they failed in their duty of care. If someone is drunk enough to shoot bottle rockets out of their anus I don't think you'll have a hard time convincing either a judge or jury that this person was a hazard.

With respect to the lack of a railing, even if building codes don't require one, the courts can still find you at fault for not having one depending on the conditions present. A good lawyer will invoke the argument of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) if there are other conditions (such as rough terrain like a rock garden) beside or near the deck which a reasonable person should recognize as a hazard.


But due diligence does not automatically mean that you are responsible for the actions of others.  If someone gets hurt because you did not shovel your steps and they slipped and fail that is negligence on your part.  It they were pushed down the steps by someone else that is not an issue of due diligence.  Let us say that I am having a party and one of the guests, be they invited or not, pulls out a gun and shoots someone dead.  Am I responsible for that person's actions?  Will I now be be charged with assisting in manslaughter?  No, and No.  Due diligence can only extend so far and does not cover everything.

As for the frat, I never said that they were exempt from having put up a railing.  I merely pointed up that if the deck is of a certain height then the law itself makes them exempt.  And in regards to the buy being drunk enough to put a bottle rocket up his butt, well, maybe he was drunk and maybe he was not.  There are plenty of videos out on YouTube of sober people doing equally stupid stuff.  Proving he was drunk might be very hard if not impossible to do.

And as for res ipsa loquitur, they can try it but that does not mean it will work.  If there is no statute that specifically says that there has to be a railing if there is dangerous terrain then chances are that it will not work.
 
2013-06-14 07:19:27 PM

camelclub: I'd like to know how to mentally process this kind of thinking because I'm pretty sure my 18 year old could possibly be talked into doing something that stupid.....I'd like to know how to pre-emptivily discourage him from blowing up his ass and causing me thousands in medical expenses.


I think talking about accidents with your kids is a good way to teach some risks to worry about, and hopefully to apply to newly encountered risks. Discussed last week's near-death soy sauce article with my teens, who have done stupid eating challenges with hot peppers (nothing extreme, but it's got some similarities). And inhaling alcohol vapor for faster calorie-free highs, and last week's kickstarter plea from the parents of a woman who tried to jump from a roof to a pool. They're interesting conversations, too, not just a one-way lecture like "don't chug soy sauce" or "don't shoot anus rockets," for the same reason Fark comments sections can be both entertaining and informative. Aside from some lighthearted mockery, they can veer into medical issues, why people do such things, legal and ethical questions, and so on.
 
2013-06-14 09:33:13 PM
Frat parties were always the best to crash. They attracted the sweetest girls while by midnight the frat guys were either passed out or blowing each other.
 
2013-06-14 09:48:30 PM

Mock26: Let us say that I am having a party and one of the guests, be they invited or not, pulls out a gun and shoots someone dead.  Am I responsible for that person's actions?  Will I now be be charged with assisting in manslaughter?


If you knew or should have known that they were likely to do something like this, then yes you could be sued. Hell I've successfully evicted dozens of people because of the actions of their guests (and yes, I realize landlord and tenant law is operates at a lesser burden of proof than a civil court but it demonstrates that you can be held responsible for the actions of a third party). I'll give you another (true) example: A few years ago I had a tenant (let's call her Tenant A) who did not have a dog when she moved in. The lease specifically forbade pets of any kind, and it specifically required her to carry tenants insurance (which we confirmed annually on the anniversary of the tenancy). At some point she acquired a large dog, which she did not report to me. About a week after she got the dog it got off it's leash and was running loose, which is a violation of local by-laws. The dog bit the child living in the neighbouring unit. The child's family (Tenant B) sued Tenant A and my company. We were able to demonstrate in court  that we had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such an occurrence. Furthermore, the court agreed that since the dog had only been in tenant A's possession for such a short period of time we had no reasonable way of knowing that she had it. The court found tenant A solely responsible.  However, unbeknownst to us tenant A had cancelled her insurance shortly after we last checked it and she had no personal assets that the courts could liquidate to satisfy the claim. Therefore it fell onto us solely because the incident occurred on our property. I only mention this to demonstrate that what you and I consider reasonable, and what the law considers reasonable are rarely the same. We live in a world where people are frequently held responsible for the stupidity of others.

Mock26: And in regards to the buy being drunk enough to put a bottle rocket up his butt, well, maybe he was drunk and maybe he was not.  There are plenty of videos out on YouTube of sober people doing equally stupid stuff.  Proving he was drunk might be very hard if not impossible to do.


Travis Hughes is also being sued so he will likely claim he was drunk in order to shift responsibility off of himself, a strategy that may work depending on the circumstances (his age being the major one). If it was a large organized party he might claim that the frat had a responsibility to check ID and not serve him, or claim that the university was  in loco parentis and failed in its responsibilities to him. It all depends on the details, which were not in the article. The argument against the frat will be that as the hosts of an event where alcohol is served they ought to have known that some guests could get out of hand and that they should have made reasonable attempts to limit alcohol consumption and provided security. IF it was a large party where alcohol was served by the frat then I'll pace bets that the frat will have significant liability both from the perspective of the railing and the behavior of the guests.

/Discovery for this suit should be fun and eat up 100's of hours
//In the end the only real winners will be the lawyers
 
Displayed 11 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report