Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Another bright idea emerges from the shallow end of the gene pool.

I heard right. Rachel Corey's family is sueing Caterpillar for making and selling the 'dozer that killed her. (See my earlier post below.)

I think there's something in the law about keeping a dangerous 'dozer. Yeah. It's coming to me now. But I'm pretty sure I learned this in lawschool, umphfty years ago.

I think there's something in the law about how every 'dozer gets the first bite free, based on the theory that you don't know your 'dozer is a dangerous 'dozer until it attacks and harms somebody. After that, if anybody is injured, it's because the owner is harboring a known dangerous 'dozer and the owner will be strictly liable for any injuries caused by the permitting the dangerous'dozer to run free.

Okay, I know. It's not much of a defense. But I bet it's as good as the theory undeneath the Corey lawsuit against Caterpillar.

And not that anybody asked me or is likely to, but if I were asked to represent somebody, I'd prefer to defend the manufacturer using this silly argument, rather than represent the the plaintiff, using whatever the hell they must be using for a theory of recovery, sight unseen.

No comments: