[Baldspot]

Feel like I'm in kindergarden now but okay duty owed, duty breached, prox cause and actual damages. Proving Wawa had 1% negligence is all you need and any jury, looking at a crying widow is going to say Wawa should have had one more night light on their lot.

But you still have to prove all four negligence elements in regards to Wawa. If the elements are not there the case shouldn't even get to the jury. You are right in that juries are often populated with idiots, but I don't think that the juries in Utah and Colorado are always better than juries in Virginia.

I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to prove negligence on the part of the University simply because they permitted what was already authorized under State law.

I'm back to work now so you guys are on your own.

Just so you know, I wasn't/am not trying to be a jerk. I don't want you to take my posts the wrong way.[/quote End Post



I wish it were this simple but joint and several is the darling of the plaintiff bar as they are only looking for deep pockets. Not much else makes sense. Basically, you apply the four negligence statutes to the perpetrator - person A in the scenario. After that, the court will join anyone (deep pockets) who can be shown to have only 1% negligence (property owner is generally all you need to be in the cross hairs). The 1% negligent party (deep pockets) is then responsible for 100% of the perpetrators damages. It's just my opinion, that LU putting in writing any type of support for gun ownership would be used by the plaintiff's attorney to inflame a jury pool that may not be totally supportive of LU in the first place. The jury pool's potential animosity toward LU I believe separates us from the CVCCs of the world. I worked in Student Development a number of years and saw too many crazies, suicidal students etc etc to think this is a good idea.

Hope I didn't bore anyone.

[makarov97]

...

[PAmedic]

head hurting.

need coffee.

going to WAWA

[thepostman]

head hurting.

need coffee.

going to WAWA

so after many debates on here about WaWa vs Sheetz and my wife telling me WaWa was not better then Sheetz, we finally stopped at a WaWa in PA, and I must say it is way better then sheetz and I think my wife is dead wrong on this....don't tell her that though...haha

[Baldspot]

Okay - let's put down the "Legalese for Dummies" book and re-read the following:

only 1% negligence (property owner is generally all you need to be in the cross hairs)

I.E. you own the property and your joined to the suit. Your now responsible for 100% of the punitive damages caused by someone standing on your property. Doesn't make sense, I know, but that's attorneys making it easy to get at deep pockets.

Put the policy in writing and you've created a business practice which can be broadcast in front a jury that's looking at a grieving widow and looking for deep pockets for compensatory and punitive damages.

My apologies for not making it any simpler and using too much industry jargon perhaps.
Just trying to help someone keep the issues in proper context.

[Baldspot]

head hurting.

need coffee.

going to Dunkin Donuts

FIFY I recently handled a liability claim occurring at Dunkin Dounts in your neck of the woods. Our witness - a police officer.

[makarov97]

...

[Baldspot]

While you are correct that one only has to show a small amount of negligence, one still still prove the four elements of a negligence claim for BOTH parties, before one gets to the issue of joint and several liability.

Some people can't be helped. I thought I explained I handle this as a profession so of course I was correct. Wish I had more time for silliness, but I don't and its been fun.

[PAmedic]

I recently handled a liability claim occurring at Dunkin Dounts in your neck of the woods. Our witness - a police officer.

sheer coincidence, I'm sure

[makarov97]

...

[Baldspot]

This thread reminds me of being back in the day when I was an RA and there were countless freshmen guys who couldn't get a date on Friday nights so they'd stay on the floor debating major issues of the day, proclaiming themselves to be so called experts. They'd go till sun up debating one another just so they didn't have to admit they were in over their heads.

The smart guys were the out of the dorms, probably on dates because they didn't have acne problems. I was the dummy who took the scholarship and had to stay on duty. Ah, those were the days.

[JDUB]

you were an RA.... figures

[Baldspot]

Student, RA, RD, married a dean, lived on campus about 11 years. Groan. Scar and the football players from my era will attest I was one of the cool ones, I had them all. Now I negotiate tort settlements, only the salary has changed.

[makarov97]

...

[JMUDukes]

head hurting.

need coffee.

going to WAWA

+1

[JMUDukes]

head hurting.

need coffee.

going to WAWA

so after many debates on here about WaWa vs Sheetz and my wife telling me WaWa was not better then Sheetz, we finally stopped at a WaWa in PA, and I must say it is way better then sheetz and I think my wife is dead wrong on this....don't tell her that though...haha

I had never heard of Sheetz till I got to Harrisonburg.

[HenryGale]

Liberty University police officers will remain the only people allowed to carry firearms on campus, but that could change in the future, LU’s board of trustees decided Tuesday.

Board members, at Liberty for a regularly scheduled meeting, decided to continue to not allow people with concealed handgun permits to carry weapons on campus.

Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. had brought the matter before the board after members of Liberty’s chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus requested a change in policy.

“The feeling was that, unlike most private property owners, we have our own police force,” Falwell said after the meeting. “So the decision was made, since crime has not really been a problem at LU, not to make any changes to the policy at this time.

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/loc ... ide/13998/[/url]

[Fumblerooskies]

makarov97 in 3...2...1...

[Kolzilla41]

I think it is the right call for now

[LUconn]

until someone comes on campus and shoots up a bunch of students. I guess we'll just wait for that.












Just thought I'd throw that stick of dynamite into the room and run away.

[thepostman]

or how about this one....I think guns should be outlawed

I wonder if makarov97 will catch onto the sarcasm

[El Scorcho]

I have a serious question about all of this...

The way it is presented in the N&A article, it sounds as if it was an all or nothing proposition. They cite not wanting to have 21 y/o permit holders with guns in the dorms as one of their reasons for turning it down. Was there no flexibility in that? For example, could they have decided to let faculty/staff members with permits carry but say no to students? Or allow permit holders to carry but say no guns in the dorms?

I'm genuinely asking. I'm just wondering how such a thing is decided on.

[RagingTireFire]

I'm genuinely asking. I'm just wondering how such a thing is decided on.

The trustees sit around a circular table made from the wood of a 400-year old boabab tree and each board member is given a black stone and a white stone. A small burgundy-colored felt bag is then passed clockwise around the room and each member drops in the stone that most appropriately reflects their vote -- the white stone means 'yes' and the black usually means 'no', although in certain circumstances black can also mean 'death'. After each member has put in their stone, the head of the board takes the bag and dumps the stones out into a small marble reliquary and the individual stones are counted with the corresponding verdict being put in place.

This is how such things are decided on.

[PAmedic]

thanks, freak

[makarov97]

...