Is there a Lawyer in the room?

[Von Drunky]

No this isn’t about my DWI

1. If someone breaks into a gym takes a bunch of merchandise (protein shakes, pills, ect) and puts it in a random locker and locks it what will the person/s get charged with
also the same scenario but instead of breaking into the gym the person gets lock in the gym.

Mainly what is that term called when your robbing shit but you never actually take it off the property?

2. Whose family would have a better case against a theme park (lets say Six Flags) a)someone that dies by falling out of a rollercoaster? or b) someone that is walking by and gets crushed by a rollercoaster cart that went of the tracks?

Does liability play a factor because you assume some risk for getting on a rollercoaster?

 

[Sander]

No this isn’t about my DWI

1. If someone breaks into a gym takes a bunch of merchandise (protein shakes, pills, ect) and puts it in a random locker and locks it what will the person/s get charged with
also the same scenario but instead of breaking into the gym the person gets lock in the gym.

Mainly what is that term called when your robbing shit but you never actually take it off the property?

Breaking and entering.

2. Whose family would have a better case against a theme park (lets say Six Flags) a)someone that dies by falling out of a rollercoaster? or b) someone that is walking by and gets crushed by a rollercoaster cart that went of the tracks?

Does liability play a factor because you assume some risk for getting on a rollercoaster?

No. There is no assumed risk in getting into a rollercoaster.

 

[Von Drunky]

No this isn’t about my DWI

1. If someone breaks into a gym takes a bunch of merchandise (protein shakes, pills, ect) and puts it in a random locker and locks it what will the person/s get charged with
also the same scenario but instead of breaking into the gym the person gets lock in the gym.

Mainly what is that term called when your robbing shit but you never actually take it off the property?

Breaking and entering.

2. Whose family would have a better case against a theme park (lets say Six Flags) a)someone that dies by falling out of a rollercoaster? or b) someone that is walking by and gets crushed by a rollercoaster cart that went of the tracks?

Does liability play a factor because you assume some risk for getting on a rollercoaster?

No. There is no assumed risk in getting into a rollercoaster.

If the person was originally locked in it would be trespass at best, I’m mainly concerned about the stolen goods still being stashed on the property. Also if the cops catch you inside before you get a chance to leave the property with a bag full of stolen shit what is that term called larceny?

 

[Nim82]

Possibly vandalism, with respect to moving stuff around. I know guys who have been busted on that for playing with diversion signs, and moving traffic cones around etc.

 

[Sander]

If the person was originally locked in it would be trespass at best, I’m mainly concerned about the stolen goods still being stashed on the property.

You can be charged with stealing, provided they can prove that your intention in hiding the stuff was to collect it later. The fact that it's still on the property is not relevant.

 

[welsh]

Yes, there is.

No this isn’t about my DWI

1. If someone breaks into a gym takes a bunch of merchandise (protein shakes, pills, ect) and puts it in a random locker and locks it what will the person/s get charged with
also the same scenario but instead of breaking into the gym the person gets lock in the gym.

THe taking of merchanise and putting into a random locker is theft. It doesn't have to leave the premises. If you wanted to sue in civil action, it would be called a conversion and you can recover the value of those items. YOu can also probably get the guy bounced out of the gym for his criminal conduct.

Mainly what is that term called when your robbing shit but you never actually take it off the property?

Its still a larceny. The common law elements of larceny are-
(a) a taking- obtaining control
(b) and carrying away (asportation)-
(c) of tangible personal property- in this case gym shit.
(d) of another (yours, I assume).
(e) by trespass (meaning without consent or consent induced by fraud)
(f) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of her interest in the property.

He didn't have to take it away, merely to deprive you of it.

2. Whose family would have a better case against a theme park (lets say Six Flags) a)someone that dies by falling out of a rollercoaster? or b) someone that is walking by and gets crushed by a rollercoaster cart that went of the tracks?

What you are talking about is assumption of risk, I think. What it foreseeable that a person fallout of a rollercoaster? Doubtful.

In either case I think the theme park is looking at negligence and perhaps even strict product's liability.

A defect in the rollercoaster, the roller coaster's safety or negligence in the maintenance in both cases seem very similar. In the second case (person gets crushed), arguable you have no conduct by the deceased that might suggest a mistake. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff/deceased knew the rollercoaster to have a defect in the seat and took the ride anyway, I would assume the theme park would raise a defense.

In tort cases (which is what you're talking about) there are three basic defenses-
- Contributory negligence- in which the injured party did something stupid and contributed to their own injury. Likewise you have the "last clear chance" to avoid an accident which may excuse a defendant if the plaintiff could have avoided the accident. In some places, like Virginia, this could be used as a defense. However, given that the rollercoaster was controlled by the themepark and they failed to care for it- you still got strict product's liability here. If the dead is a child, the theme park is fucked.

Under contributory negligence you have a few wrinkles. It sounds more like you have what's called a "helpless peril", the devices that shoukd have kept the deceased in the car failed to work and the defendant knew, or should have known, about the danger. That the theme parks employees knew and didn't tell the managers means the theme park is still fucked- third party failure here is the liabiilty of the defendant park.

- Assumption of Risk? Unlikely that either person assumed risk of going onto the park. Plus you still have Strict Product's Liability.

Comparative negligence? probably doesn't save the defendant here, especially under Strict Products Liability.

You may argue that the defendant park would prefer if the plaintiff deceased fell out of the cart, but either way its fucked. This wrongful death case is going to hurt.

Does liability play a factor because you assume some risk for getting on a rollercoaster?

Assumption of Risk is often an used as a defense but assumes-
(1) the plaintiff knew the risk,
(2) voluntarily proceeded decpite the risk.

However, considering how many people ride rollercoasters, its unlikely that the person really believed that they'd fall out of a cart.

But you will note that the park often has signs that say, "don't ride this if you've got a heart condition." That's because its possible that a person might be so excited that they have a heart attack on the rollercoaster. Under those circumstances, its a better argument that the plaintiff assumed the risk. Likewise, people sign express limitations of liability before parachuting or going white water rafting. But those are very different experiences than a ride at 6 flags. Even so, the skydiving company is liable if they gave the client a bad chute and the white water company is probably liable if they gave them a defective boat and life preserver.

That the cart broke and someone fell out can only be due ("But for") a defect in the product (a bad rollercoaster) or negligence in maintenance.

If the cart is broken and the staff allows the person to ride it they are essentially telling the riders that the ride is safe. No one voluntarily takes a death trip.

 

[Stag]

When you enter an amusement park, isn't there something about you voiding the park's liability on your ticket?

 

[Von Drunky]

Yes, there is.

No this isn’t about my DWI

1. If someone breaks into a gym takes a bunch of merchandise (protein shakes, pills, ect) and puts it in a random locker and locks it what will the person/s get charged with
also the same scenario but instead of breaking into the gym the person gets lock in the gym.

THe taking of merchanise and putting into a random locker is theft. It doesn't have to leave the premises. If you wanted to sue in civil action, it would be called a conversion and you can recover the value of those items. YOu can also probably get the guy bounced out of the gym for his criminal conduct.

Mainly what is that term called when your robbing shit but you never actually take it off the property?

Its still a larceny. The common law elements of larceny are-
(a) a taking- obtaining control
(b) and carrying away (asportation)-
(c) of tangible personal property- in this case gym shit.
(d) of another (yours, I assume).
(e) by trespass (meaning without consent or consent induced by fraud)
(f) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of her interest in the property.

He didn't have to take it away, merely to deprive you of it.

2. Whose family would have a better case against a theme park (lets say Six Flags) a)someone that dies by falling out of a rollercoaster? or b) someone that is walking by and gets crushed by a rollercoaster cart that went of the tracks?

What you are talking about is assumption of risk, I think. What it foreseeable that a person fallout of a rollercoaster? Doubtful.

In either case I think the theme park is looking at negligence and perhaps even strict product's liability.

A defect in the rollercoaster, the roller coaster's safety or negligence in the maintenance in both cases seem very similar. In the second case (person gets crushed), arguable you have no conduct by the deceased that might suggest a mistake. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff/deceased knew the rollercoaster to have a defect in the seat and took the ride anyway, I would assume the theme park would raise a defense.

In tort cases (which is what you're talking about) there are three basic defenses-
- Contributory negligence- in which the injured party did something stupid and contributed to their own injury. Likewise you have the "last clear chance" to avoid an accident which may excuse a defendant if the plaintiff could have avoided the accident. In some places, like Virginia, this could be used as a defense. However, given that the rollercoaster was controlled by the themepark and they failed to care for it- you still got strict product's liability here. If the dead is a child, the theme park is fucked.

Under contributory negligence you have a few wrinkles. It sounds more like you have what's called a "helpless peril", the devices that shoukd have kept the deceased in the car failed to work and the defendant knew, or should have known, about the danger. That the theme parks employees knew and didn't tell the managers means the theme park is still fucked- third party failure here is the liabiilty of the defendant park.

- Assumption of Risk? Unlikely that either person assumed risk of going onto the park. Plus you still have Strict Product's Liability.

Comparative negligence? probably doesn't save the defendant here, especially under Strict Products Liability.

You may argue that the defendant park would prefer if the plaintiff deceased fell out of the cart, but either way its fucked. This wrongful death case is going to hurt.

Does liability play a factor because you assume some risk for getting on a rollercoaster?

Assumption of Risk is often an used as a defense but assumes-
(1) the plaintiff knew the risk,
(2) voluntarily proceeded decpite the risk.

However, considering how many people ride rollercoasters, its unlikely that the person really believed that they'd fall out of a cart.

But you will note that the park often has signs that say, "don't ride this if you've got a heart condition." That's because its possible that a person might be so excited that they have a heart attack on the rollercoaster. Under those circumstances, its a better argument that the plaintiff assumed the risk. Likewise, people sign express limitations of liability before parachuting or going white water rafting. But those are very different experiences than a ride at 6 flags. Even so, the skydiving company is liable if they gave the client a bad chute and the white water company is probably liable if they gave them a defective boat and life preserver.

That the cart broke and someone fell out can only be due ("But for") a defect in the product (a bad rollercoaster) or negligence in maintenance.

If the cart is broken and the staff allows the person to ride it they are essentially telling the riders that the ride is safe. No one voluntarily takes a death trip.

thanks for clearing that up. oh and it wasnt my stuff that was stolen, it was shit they sell at the gym.

 

[welsh]

You're welcome. ANd yes, there has been a theft against the gym.

@ Stag- the liability on the park ticket?

As for the liability clauses-
To the best of my knowledge there are no limitations of liability clauses on the ticket to an amusement part, and even if there were, its unlikely anyone would have read it.

THat's not to say that these clauses don't matter. A famous case involving Carnival Cruise Lines allowed them to escape laibility on a slip and fall that occurred out at sea. You can contract out much of your liability in a contract, but there are some serious limits. Personally, I think the court screwed the pooch on the Carnival Cruise cases which was really a case based on choice of forum rules, as I recall.

Remember, I mentioned that a party can expressly assume the risk and, by contract, waive some of his right to tort claims- the skydiver or the race car driver might not have the same immunities as others.

So one can be held limited by an express assumption of risk, but there are issues to be decided-
- what was the bargaining power in this, and did the plaintiff have to sign the waiver.
- does the defendant offer a public service (In our case its essentially a park which I would argue is similar to a public carrier and difficulty to escape liability).
- did the plaintiff (or family) know about this liability. IF the disclaimer is on the fineprint of a ticket stub, I doubt it would work.
-how negligent is the defendent- if the defendant is willful or acting intentionally, he's screwed. In this case I see products liability is a big problem for the D.

Main point here- you can't void out your liability for negligence merely because you got the D to sign a piece of paper.

Compare to this-
A race car diver signs a limitation of liability clause before racing. During the race his car is pushed up against the rails by a competitor causes an fiery crash. Alternative, a piece of another racer's car or a tool is on the racetrack, and causes an accident.

Result- Plausible events could happen, the behavior is inherently dangerous, Driver didn't have to race a car, collisions are par the course, the driver knew the risks. I would assume the driver's family is shit out of luck.

But same accident, car hits the guardrail, bounces out of the racetrack and into the stands, cartwheels through the crowd throwing burning gasoline everywhere as it crushes the spectators. In the panic to escape, there are not enough doors to escape (simiilar to the famous Who concert when there were not enough doors in), and people get crushed in th stampede.

"Wait!" says the owner/manager of the track, "the spectators should have seen that limitation of liability clause on the ticket!"

I think in that case the racetrack manager is seriously fucked either because he failed to ensure the safety of the crowd (a matter of proof) or failed to provide sufficient exits in the event of emergency (negligence).

There is also a whole set of laws dealing with the obligation of owners to visitors or guests to their premises.

People who pay to go to a theme park are invitees. These folks, according to the majority of cases, reasonably expect that the premises have been made safe for them.

As invitees, the public has a right to expect the owner, the park owner, to exercise reasonable care for their safety. The onwer has a duty to inspect for damages, may not create unreasonable risks of harm on his guests, and must even find hidden dangers.

He must warn the invitees of potential hazards and dangerous conditions, and if the warnign is not sufficient to remove the danger, he must take action to protect his guest. This is especially true if he thinks a warning won't suffice (ie a sign by the roller coaster that says "no children above this height" will probbaly require staff to actually enforce that rule).

That said, I seriously doubt a theme park like 6 flags would be able to skip liability on either negligence of Strict Products Liability on this. Rollercoasters are not meant to be deathtraps and their failure to provide a safe ride is going to get them in deep trouble. Rules on the duty owed to invitees (even the public) seem to confirm that.

So I think your theme park is really fucked.

One more wrinkle- Trespass-
Lets say that the person died on the rollercoaster but that the ride was closed and non-operating because of repair. Now that factual situation really changes things. If its an adult, chances are this asshole is a trespasser, especially if the ride has been clearly closed off. If the theme park didn't know, then the guy who gets thrown from the car is a tresspasser and he might have no chance to recover- although here too there are exceptions.

But if the tresspasser is a child, then you might have "attractive nuisance doctrine" which has a whole different set of rules. Suffice it to say that if the park had reason to believe that some asshole kids might tresspass and play on the ride, the theme park might still be fucked by not securing the ride with reasonable care. If so, you have a negligence standard applied to the facts.


I didn't mention the "person gets locked in the gym" situation.

If the person managed to lock himself into the room on purpose- then the gym has a case for tresspass to land.

If the person was accidently locked in, then you have a case of negligence.

But what if the person gets injured on the premises after being locked in? Well that's kind of interesting.

 

[Madbringer]

Sorry for hijack, but what i'm about to ask is on a related topic, and i think it can be contained in this thread - a guy i know has recently said that he's going for one year to prison, because a mate of his beat up a guy and then framed him into this.

I'm wondering if a one year sentence is even possible in the case of simple assault? I have a hard time believing this story, but then again, i know jack shit about how Swedish law works (yes, that all happened in Sweden).

You can read what he wrote here.

Uh, engrish warning.

 

[welsh]

Someone commits an act of violence against another person, and you don't thing that's worth a year in jail?

In the US, he might get off easier as the jails are full with more meaningful criminals, but in Sweden, he might get sent north.

 

[Madbringer]

Someone commits an act of violence against another person, and you don't thing that's worth a year in jail?

Depends on what exactly prompted the said act, and how much damage was done to the victim, i guess.

I'm not exactly sure on both, to be honest, but i never thought that a plain ol' beating up would be worth more then a few months of suspended sentence.

 

[Sorrow]

Good. Violent criminals should feel the consequences of their despicable actions. Personally I'm for killing them all off.

On the other hand...
He got framed? I mean one can be abducted and kept for one year for not anything wrong? That's sick :/ .

 

[welsh]

Getting framed is a matter of evidence.

As for the punishment- fair enough that under the common law battery was a simple misdeamenor but only requried-

"an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching."

So rubbing your crotch against a woman might not cause bodily injury but would be an offensive touching- subject to both criminal and tort law.

Aggrevated batters was, in the common law, a felony. Usually these were the result of -
-battery with a deadly weapon.
-serious bodily injury-
- victim was a child, woman or police officer.

But you are in Sweden, so the penalties might be much more stiff. Don't know. I would check the Swedish criminal code.

I checked this- www.wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/sweden.pdf
and it looks like your friend could have gone down for two years if it was pretty bad. If it was petty, then up to 6 months. Law looks pretty unclear to me.

 

[keyser Soeze]

But you are in Sweden, so the penalties might be much more stiff. Don't know. I would check the Swedish criminal code.

Compared to what?

Sweden have a pretty soft system if you compare with the US i think.

 

[welsh]

Assault gets you 2 years, and there's probably a chance of doing the time? That's pretty stiff.

In the US you get into a barfight and if its a first offense I would think you have a good chance at walking away from it with a slap on the wrist. In sweden they send you off for a year or two? Ouch.