Here is part of the problem.

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by GlennO

Going back to my maniac on a wheelchair, would injured mall patrons sue the mall just because they can - or does the mall have an actual status of a partially legal liability with that driver's liability?
Wouldn't the mall's attorney argue that it just happened in a mall, and that this maniac could have done it on a sidewalk? Again, IT'S THE DRIVER - NOT THE MACHINE!

Glenn

It's the driver, but... In this litigious society, the (possibly) injured "victim" will likely sue every person and every company that could be slightly involved, in the hopes of finding "deep pockets" that would rather pay than actually defend themselves as it costs more for the attorneys' fees than to settle.

I know of a case where a guy slipped in a mall. He sued the mall, the cleaning service, the manufacturer of the wax used on the floor, the cane manufacturer, and the rubber tip manufacturer. Did all of them cause him to fall? Unfortunately (IMNSHO), this country's judges are failing to throw out "frivolous" lawsuits as quickly as they should.

I'd like to see a new "three-strikes" law -- three frivolous lawsuits within five years means a three-year disbarment. Now that might make an impact!!

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by GlennO

Going back to my maniac on a wheelchair, would injured mall patrons sue the mall just because they can - or does the mall have an actual status of a partially legal liability with that driver's liability?
Wouldn't the mall's attorney argue that it just happened in a mall, and that this maniac could have done it on a sidewalk? Again, IT'S THE DRIVER - NOT THE MACHINE!

Glenn

Nobody can tell in any situation who/what has liability. The courts determine liability. So, the lawyer(s) for the injured will (quite properly) advise bringing suit against everybody who might be found liable. And particularly against everybody who has money, particularly if they might settle out of court. That's the way the system works, and I don't have giant objections to it [although suing somebody because they will settle out of court is personally objectionable to me if there's no substantial chance that the courts would find them liable]

In addition to those already mentioned, the maniac's physician and/or psychiatrist might be sued. The discovery process might reveal some responsibility there (or might not).

Attornies for the various parties sued, can easily petition to have their part of the case thrown out on "clearly no way we could be liable" grounds. If the court grants that, they're off the hook rather inexpensively.

[GlennO]

Ok, that makes sense. Wouldn't it be in the mall's best interest to post a sign up saying something like - we are not responsible for any accidents caused by shoppers' wheeled goods?

After all, don't these same malls have signs posted in their parking lots about their responsibility for parked cars?

Would doing that take care of the problem?

Glenn

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by GlennO

Ok, that makes sense. Wouldn't it be in the mall's best interest to post a sign up saying something like - we are not responsible for any accidents caused by shoppers' wheeled goods?

After all, don't these same malls have signs posted in their parking lots about their responsibility for parked cars?

Would doing that take care of the problem?

Glenn

Yes, Yes, and No. It wouldn't prevent the majority of suits, and might perhaps provide an additional defense.