Posted by:
elderolddog
(
)
Date: August 23, 2020 01:36PM
I tried to ignore this, but woe is me, I'm weak!
How about this... You have a porch that's two steps up from the front walkway. One of the steps has a warped tread. Who among the following could sue you (and expect a jury to agree with them) for injuries when they tripped on the warped tread?
a) your mailman
b) a visiting grandchild
c) the missionary you 'invited' to mow your lawn
d) your boss, coming to dinner
e) a JW, come to preach to you
f) a roommate
Would anything change if you had a locked gate that would only open if you had to push a button that was labeled, "By pushing this button to gain entry, I agree to indemnify and hold harmless Mr. Desert Rat from any and all mishap and injury I might sustain on his property"?
(You created a "business invitee" class of people whom you felt need to sign hold harmless firms... Just like Costco?)
Civil courts exist to sort out disagreements because the parties couldn't agree between themselves. One side (and often times both sides!) is/are certain that the court will find for him/her/it/them.
But basically, if you could wrap your head around "The Reasonable Person" standard, you'd answer many of your own questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_personPerhaps the hardest part of the Reasonable Person standard is that YOU, as a trier-of-fact are never allowed to base a verdict on the notion that YOU are a Reasonable Person. It's never, "What would I decide regarding the presented facts?", but "What would the Reasonable Person decide?"