Victim liability - Assembly bill AB 200
Jeff Albom
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 Lichtman
> 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.
>
> >(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
Frank Dibbell
> > >(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?
>
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.....]