jeff@wjvax.UUCP (Jeff Albom) (05/06/85)
This item was found in the editorial section of the San Jose Mercury News on Monday May 6. It speaks for itself although I am not positive of the validity of the statements or the incidental consequences of the bill AB 200. >Current state law permits a criminal - trespassing on private or public >property to commit murder,rape,burglary or some other felony - to sue the >owner of the property for damages if he, the criminal injures himself. > >That's the law, and it's being used to extort hundreds of thousands of >dollars from innocent property owners to compensate criminals who injure >themselves while in the process of committing a crime! > >Even more outrageous has been the behavior of the legislators of the >Assembly's Judiciary Committee. Almost every year since 1979, this >committee has killed proposals to put an end to this "welfare for criminals." > >Why? Perhaps because the California Trial Lawyers' Association has poured >more than $300,000 a year into legislator's war chests. And CTLA members >make huge profits on lawsuits. > >Assemblyman Alister McAlister is trying again, this year, with a bill >(AB 200) sponsored by the California Farm Bureau Federation and ACTIV >(Alliance of California Taxpayers & Invovled Voters) to end property >owner liability to criminals. > >Readers who believe innocent bystanders should not have to pay to be >victims of criminals should write their legislators and urge them to get >behind AB 200 and make sure it passes this year. *** The standard disclaimer applies to this article, myself, my company and my pet dog Spot.***
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (05/12/85)
> This item was found in the editorial section of the San Jose Mercury News > on Monday May 6. It speaks for itself although I am not positive of the > validity of the statements or the incidental consequences of the bill > AB 200. > > >Assemblyman Alister McAlister is trying again, this year, with a bill > >(AB 200) sponsored by the California Farm Bureau Federation and ACTIV > >(Alliance of California Taxpayers & Invovled Voters) to end property > >owner liability to criminals. > > Does anyone know what type of criminal action on the part of the injured would absolve the property owner from liability under AB 200? Would the crime have to be a felony? Would the criminal have to be uninvited? Imagine that some kid sneaks into my back yard to set off firecrackers, and falls into my well. Would I have no liability under AB 200, because the kid entered my property to commit a crime? Imagine that someone I invited into my home was carrying an illegal weapon, and my rickety bookshelf fell on him. Would I have no liability under AB 200, because the injured party was committing a crime on my property? I think that such a law should be written so that I would only be absolved from liability if the accident wouldn't have occurred had the injured party not been breaking the law. Is AB 200 written this way? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell) (05/13/85)
> > >Assemblyman Alister McAlister is trying again, this year, with a bill > > >(AB 200) sponsored by the California Farm Bureau Federation and ACTIV > > >(Alliance of California Taxpayers & Invovled Voters) to end property > > >owner liability to criminals. > > > > > Does anyone know what type of criminal action on the part of the injured > would absolve the property owner from liability under AB 200? Would the > crime have to be a felony? Would the criminal have to be uninvited? > Assemblyman McAlister had proposed a version of this bill previously that was narrowed to denying the right to sue to those convicted of felonies. It was killed in committee (S.J. News 5/7/85 p8B). > Imagine that some kid sneaks into my back yard to set off firecrackers, > and falls into my well. Would I have no liability under AB 200, because > the kid entered my property to commit a crime? > If the kid were trespassing, and you did not invite him/her onto your property, perhaps you wouldn't have any liability under AB200. > Imagine that someone I invited into my home was carrying an illegal weapon, > and my rickety bookshelf fell on him. Would I have no liability under AB 200, > because the injured party was committing a crime on my property? > Operative word here: you *invited* him/her into your home. That makes him/her a guest, and the fact he/she were carrying an illegal weapon would be immaterial. (Unless you knew about it, then maybe you could be an accessory? :-) ). > I think that such a law should be written so that I would only be absolved > from liability if the accident wouldn't have occurred had the injured party > not been breaking the law. Is AB 200 written this way? > -- I believe that is the intent, based on the above-sited article in the paper. I am hardly a reactionary, but when I heard about the young man in Redding who, while attempting to burglarize a High School fell through the skylight and successfully sued the city for failing to warn him that the skylight was unsafe, my blood boiled. The kid got 260,000, plus 1,200 a month for life. It does seem, however, that the California Trial Lawyers Association has a vested interest in seeing that this law fails. -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....]