7/23    Woman branded by manhole cover sues:
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8666753
        \_ "[the woman] is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages
           because of Con Ed's "reprehensible and egregious failure and refusal
           to protect the public from this manifestly clear and present danger."
           ... to protect the public from this manifestly clear and present
           danger."
           It's exactly this sort of frivolous bullshit that should be the
           reason people's right to sue should be revoked. Seriously,
           is anyone here able to take the woman's side? Hopefully this
           will be thrown out the minute a judge sees it.
           \_ If I had sued for exactly 1 dollar of damages every time I did
              something retarded on my skateboard and got a bruise, scrape,
              sprain, break, cut, or headwound, I'd be a fucking millionaire.
              Fortunately, all the skaters I knew thought lawsuits were evil
              and injuries were cool.
           \_ If the manhole cover was just any other cover and she just broke
              some bones, I wouldn't take her side.  if this searing hot
              some bones, I wouldn't take her side.  If this searing hot
              manhole cover over a steam pipe was barricaded and she ran
              through the barricates and fell and got burnt, I wouldn't take
              her side.  But in this case, I'll take her side.  Imagine some
              toddler walking on the cover and falling.  Or imagine someone who
              touches the cover while picking up something he drops.  This is
              not like ordering a cup of hot coffee and then sueing for
              injuries because the coffee is hot.  It is unreasonable to not
              expect hot coffee to be hot, but it is reasonable to not expect a
              manhole cover on the street to be burning hot.
        \_ duty?  breach of duty?  causation?  damages?
           Were there damages?  Yes.  The woman got burned.  branded even.
           Was it caused by the ConEd manhole cover being that hot?  Yes.
           Was it caused by her falling?  Not necessarily.  She could have
           fallen on plain asphalt or concrete and just had abrasions.  That
           can argued to be an assumed risk of skateboarding or just walking
           down the street even.  Similarly, had the manhole cover not been
           so hot, she could have fallen on it and just say broken a bone or
           had impact injury.  Again, assumed risk.  It was a result of it
           being at the temperature that it was.
           Did ConEd breach any duties by having it there?  That's the
           question.  In essence, this is an unintentional booby trap.
           It can not distinguish between adult or infant, skateboarder
           or pedestrian.  Would it be any different if instead of being
           at high temperature, it were spiked?  or electrified?   It would
           be one thing if this were happening say in a underground accessway
           or in a ConEd shack.  But it's on a public road, a busy one.
           As always, the question is did aparty's breach of duty lead to
           damages on the part of the other party.  if so, was it simple
           negligence, gross (or criminal) negligence, or intentional
           action, or intentional action with intent to do harm?
           \_ ConEd's duty would be a duty of reasonable care under
              the circumstances.  So what were the circumstances?
              A man hole cover sat in the sun all day and b/c it
              was metal it got very hot - hot enough to cause burns.
              The duty of ConEd would be either to warn about the
              man-hole covers OR to provide covers which could not
              get that hot during a normal day.
              The duty was probably owed to the skater chick b/c
              it is foreseeable that anyone using the street could
              come into contact w/ the man-hole cover and be hurt
              by the fact that it was so hot.
              Whether ConEd breach their duty to the skater chick
              is a harder question b/c the burden to replace every
              single man-hole cover w/ a safer one or to warn would
              be quite high. However, the problem is that if this
              is a risk that the average person would not realize
              was present, ConEd may have breached their duty.
              As far as causation its pretty easy for the skater
              chick to show that "but for" ConEd's choice of metal
              man hole covers she would not have been branded.
              She can recover for other incidental injuries as
              well, but her main claim is for the branding. The
              fact that she could have been branded while merely
              walking down the street, helps her case b/c is makes
              the danger of the man-hole cover look much worse and
              minimize any contributory negligence defense that
              could be brought.
              She actually had damages in terms of physical pain
              and suffering from the burns. She probably suffered
              some amount of emotional distress from the injury
              as well as well as incuring medical costs for the
              treatment.
              While it is true that there might have been some
              assumption of the risk and contributory negligence
              on the skater chicks part, that would only lessen
              not elimiate her recover (most states now use
              comparative fault and reduce recovery based on
              % responsible).  ConEd's best defenses are public
              policy.  Imposing liability on ConEd for man-hole
              covers would (1) be crushing liability and (2)
              would make a socially important enterprise (ie
              sewers/electrical/roads) impossible.
           \_ This is probably simple negligence - ConEd would have a duty
              of reasonable care under the circumstances. Here the
              circumstances were that a man hole cover sat in the sun all
              day and b/c it was metal it got very hot - hot enough to cause
              burns. The duty of ConEd would be either to warn about the
              man-hole covers OR to provide covers which could not get that
              hot during a normal day.
              The duty was probably owed to the skater chick b/c it is
              The duty was probably owed to the idiot chick b/c it is
              foreseeable that anyone using the street could come into
              contact w/ the man-hole cover and be hurt by the fact that it
              was so hot.
              Whether ConEd breach their duty to the skater chick is a
              Whether ConEd breach their duty to the idiot chick is a
              harder question b/c the burden to replace every single
              man-hole cover w/ a safer one or to warn would be quite
              high. However, the problem is that if this is a risk that the
              average person would not realize was present, ConEd may have
              breached their duty.
              As far as causation its pretty easy for the skater chick to
              As far as causation its pretty easy for the idiot chick to
              show that "but for" ConEd's choice of metal man hole covers
              she would not have been branded. She can recover for other
              incidental injuries as well, but her main claim is for the
              branding. The fact that she could have been branded while
              merely walking down the street, helps her case b/c is makes
              the danger of the man-hole cover look much worse and minimizes
              any contributory negligence defense.
              In terms of damages she actually had damages in terms of
              physical pain and suffering from the burns. She probably
              suffered some amount of emotional distress from the injury as
              well as well as incuring medical costs for treatment.
              While it is true that there might have been some assumption of
              the risk and contributory negligence on the skater chicks
              the risk and contributory negligence on the idiot chicks'
              part, that would only lessen not elimiate her recover (most
              states now use comparative fault and reduce recovery based on
              % responsible).  ConEd's best defenses are public policy.
              Imposing liability on ConEd for man-hole covers would (1) be
              crushing liability and (2) would make a socially important
              enterprise (ie sewers/electrical/roads) impossible.
              \_ Woman who falls from skateboard != skater chick.  A real
                 skater would wear a manhole cover brand on the ass as a badge
                 of honor.
                 \_ Fine, replace skater chick w/ idiot. Makes no difference.
                 \_ Skater chick replace w/ idiot chick. I think that she is
                    an idiot to sue, but she may have a valid claim under the
                    tort law.
                    \_ If she can get some money out of it, wouldn't that make
                       her a "smart chick?"
                       \_ Even Beavis and Butthead can figure out how to call
                          some ambulance chasing bottom feeder.