Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahaha. That is pretty damn funny. I would say "So you could...", but there are just too many funny things to say. Most of them involving the word douche. Of course A-Train is wrong... but haven will probably get that point across better than I.
I don't think there's much to say. While what you say makes sense from a common-sense standpoint in a way, it's not how our system works. Just like if you have "Stay away from pool" posted all around your house, and a kid drowns... you're still responsible. I see how you might think it should be otherwise...
Where are our lawyers? This is a tort issue, I believe, and it revolves around what "duty of care" is owed by one person to another. I'm certain that you can't do whatever you want to a trespasser, but what you can do is determined by what is "reasonable" to protect your family and property, and what the precedents are, I believe.
I'd like someone to explain how the system does work, then... The situations are too ambiguous. OK, let's say you have a nice flat out in the suburbs...Two story brick home, wife, two kids....and a big ass doberman named Psycho... Let's say you have a picket fence surrounding this home with a big "beware of dog" sign out front. Mr. Cat Burglar doesn't see the dog outside, so he's probably thinking that sign is there to keep people like him away...He breaks into your home, and ten seconds later is mauled by Psycho and has to go to the hospital...so, is the homeowner liable in this case? About the pool thing....let's say you're on vacation, and your backyard pool has a locked fence around it...Some kid sneaks in, sees the "stay away from pool" sign out there and takes a dive anyways and drowns...So, it's the homeowner's fault? Screw that. Now, I see what you're saying...you're saying that in this NHL situation, that the warning on the PA system, the signs in the arena, and the warning on the back of the ticket have nothing to do with the situation, and I'm saying they do...If this girl's family drops a lawsuit on the NHL and refuses an out of court settlement, the FIRST thing that the NHL will say is, "Well, we warned her about the possibility of flying pucks". That is why the warnings matter, because if they didn't post all those warnings, the first thing thing the prosecuting attorney will say is, "Well, there were no warnings or signs at the arena!" Now, whether a judge will go for that, it remains to be seen, but in my opinion, there is NO WAY that girl's family could win a lawsuit like that
Given that I'm not a lawyer, this is my understanding. I'd say your cat burglar is S.O.L. Now if your dog was a trained killer, rather than a regular guard dog, then you may be liable, because that would likely be considered excessive and not a reasonable defence. If you had a guest coming over, and your dog psycho got lose and mauled him, then you may be liable as well. It doesn't matter that he saw the sign when he entered you place, you invited him over and he had a "reasonable expectation" that it would be safe for him to enter your place. In the pool example, it would be your responsibility to take reasonable precautions. If the fence was deemed too low or easy to climb, the judge may decide that you should have known that a child could climb it, making you liable. In this hockey case, the girl's family could argue that the reasonable interpretation of the warning was that she might be cut or bruised, not killed. The owners of the rink could say that this was a freak event that couldn't have been foreseen, and could point to the fact that it hasn't happened before.
I do not know if the writing on the back of the ticket will hold up or not, although after reading the story I do think that the arena could be held liable for not having proper medical protocal for someone getting hit by a puck. They let the girl walk away from the scene without getting thoroughly checked out. If the arena wanted to cover there butts, I would think they would not let anyone walk away after getting hit by a puck. I would think the proper protocal would be to get her to a hospital and have the doctors check her out and possibly recieve a CAT scan to detect any internal damage.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but do you REALLY know that you could get hit by a puck? I mean, it would seem to me that, due to the incredible odds, everyone would be more lax about the dangers of flying pucks. It's like saying, "You know if you go on a trip to Honduras, you could be bitten by a poisonus snake in your hotel room and die." I agree that, because of the rarity, the NHL has done what it thought was best and lawsuits seem rather petty now, but I just don't believe that anyone fully understands the reality - well, until now - because the chances were so small. By the way, even if it isn't REASONABLE to put up netting or extra plexi-glass, this is the time to do it. It wasn't reasonable for a girl to be killed by a stray puck but it happened. The appropriate response would be to re-think the safety constraints of the arena, not just hope that the next person gets out of the way. It doesn't seem to me that increasing the safety provisions after a tragedy like this would be out of line or unreasonable.
Pucks go into the stands all the time off deflections or bad shots or whatever. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be hit by a puck anymoreso than it's unreasonable to expect to be hit by foul balls in baseball.
BTW - The old Woman in McDonalds . . .was before they had HOT COFFEE everywhere. . . .actually she is the reason it is there now. Rocket River
Well if there is a chance of getting hit, then yes, there is a chance of getting killed. Very small chance, but it is there. Just so happened the very small chance happened this time.
People get hit fairly frequently, but not by full force shots. Think of bloop foul ball type deflections vs. slapshots into the stands. The NHL glass is currently high enough to essentially prevent a hard, straight shot from hitting anyone. You still get the odd shot that is deflected on a low trajectory and just clears the glass with enough velocity to cut somebody. I've seen people cut this way in NHL games, but to be hit hard enough to be killed is something that is hard to understand. Minor hockey is a different story, because the glass is a lot lower and sides often have no glass. The worst place to be in these games is low on the side towards the corner. Sometimes you'll get a player who is trying to clear the puck up the boards to ice it, and he gets it just high enough to clear the boards …
From what I have been told this young girl was able to walk out of the arena after being hit by the puck. Is this true? If so it makes this whole situation a little more tragic in my eyes. +
Hit, maybe. Killed? Doubtful. These are spectator sports, not participatory sports. Agreed, which is why it's such a random and unforeseeable event. There are thousands and thousands of freak accidents every year. I'm sure they are all preventable, if you spend enough time and money. However, is it reasonable to do? I mean, we could eliminate all traffic deaths by cutting the speed limits to 20 mph. But we don't because you have to balance convenience, the interests & needs of the people driving, etc. If you put netting around the whole arena, the entire upper deck can't see the game properly. Is that something the fans will tolerate? Is it a reasonable solution? Should we also place a glass wall around entire baseball fields? Because there's currently a larger probability of being hit and hurt by foul balls.
I think baseball and hockey are two different situations. Most people go to baseball games with gloves to catch a home run or foul ball. Enclosing the field would not be a reasonable solution. They understand the risks of sitting in an area where straight line foul balls could be hit their way. In hockey, the glass only protects the first 5 or so rows in the lower bowl. What about the other 30 some rows? Hockey prides itself on putting fans on top of the action. Fans sit right next to the ice. A 60-80 mph puck randomly traveled over the glass, bounced off someone, and still was able to kill the girl. Putting up a clear screen is not unreasonable to not only prevent death but also injury. Fan injuries at hockey games are preventable.
I don't see why netting would obstruct anyone's view. It could be fine enough to be essentially invisible.
You are ALWAYS liable for someone drowning in your pool. Even if you have a 12 foot high fence locked and barred and someone uses a ladder to climb in and swim in your pool. If they drown, your responsible. A lawyer friend of mine said that the party of the drowned person always wins because the consider the pool a hazard to public safety or some junk like that. I'm not saying its fair, I'm just saying that's how it is.
