I got almost the situation here.
I took my aunt to Grand Canyon on Thanksgiving day. While walking along the rim trail, she accidentally stepped into a pot hole and sprained her ankle so badly that she had to stay in hotel for the remainder of our trip.
Of course I was angry. I contemplated a lawsuit against NPS at the time. I've gotten an even stronger case because we are PAYING costumers so that legally we are invitees. NPS has the obligation to make the place safe for us. However, after a while I cooled down and began to think logically. It is very hard to establish a case against the government. Let me explain.
First, there is no evidence to ascertain whether the government knew that there was a danger. In landowner liability cases the subjective knowledge is required. You may argue that the government should know, but that does not count.
Second, it is very likely that the government hired contractor to do the job, the maintenaince of the road. Legally, the government is not responsible for what the contractor did unless it is an abnormally dangerous activity or the government closely supervised the contractor everyday.
Third, even if you can establish a duty that the city owed to you by arguing that the city walk is open to public so that you are a public invitee and the government must make the walk safe, the city government can still argue that it was an apparent danger so that everybody should notice. Legally, contributory negligence. SC is one of the CN states so that a slight negligence from your mom will bar the recovery completely.
Fourth, even if the Cn defense got struck down, the government still has tremendous amount of immunity to protect itself.
Finally, the damage is not that great to attract a lawyer, considered everything I mentioned above.
So, finally I gave up the idea to sue and I think you may have to do that same thing. Fortunately your mom is okay and that is the most important thing.
回複:請問老貓及各位有識之士:母親摔跤是誰的錯?
所有跟帖:
• Thanks--回複:回複:請問老貓及各位有識之士:母親摔跤是誰的錯? -pinkpiggie- ♀ (677 bytes) () 12/03/2006 postreply 13:44:25