lysanderxiii
Member
I wouldn't worry too much about it really hurting any one. But . . .
I encourage anyone considering buying one of these to read about Katko v. Briney, where a property owner set up a shotgun as a trap. Obviously much different in that using a real shotgun and shell meant deadly force, however it is not difficult to see how a possible burglar who has an injured leg, or ruptured eardrums, or stress that prevents him from working, could cause a property owner a whole lot of headache and legal bills.
Anyone who does not look at this and see a lawsuit waiting to happen simply does not understand the nature of trial lawyers. They also don't understand that juries don't consistently make good decisions.
3.) "Ruptured eardrums"? Really? LOL! Good grief.
Do you have a great deal of experience with these units? Do you have any at all?
Are you a lawyer or legal scholar?
1.) These are not firearms.
2.) These units can be screwed/bolted down and pointed/secured in a way where they don't cover anyone.
3.) "Ruptured eardrums"? Really? LOL! Good grief.
As always the liability patrol is in full force. Perhaps if we were more vocal in exercising our rights we wouldn't have to live in fear of liability, because the common man would be familiar with these traps and would understand that trespassing is the greater ill.
Not to derail the thread too hard but I always see the liability patrol saying to never do anything- Never tell people you have guns, never display your guns, never use your guns. Well if we all followed that advice there would be no guns.
You are welcome to do as you like, but this is the kind of case that me and my law school classmates laugh about. It is the kind of thing that even saying it out loud makes you think of all the different suits it could lead to. And even a suit completely lacking it in any sort of foundation can cause you significant legal bills just to respond and get it dismissed.
Again, do as you like, but don't go around thinking that it is a good idea.
I picked up a couple of similar items from a gun show a couple of years ago. I don't worry about the liability of them. When the dope head tries to force open the door of my barn and gets startled and/or I get alerted, I doubt their next course of action is going to be to lawyer up. They are going to high tail it out of there and probably not come back because they now know its a well protected property. The deer that used to eat my garden every year also haven't served me with papers yet.
Come on folks, stop living in constant fear of litigation.
Again, you can do as you like. If someone wants to put one of these on their property it makes no difference to me since I am not a trespasser.
But lawyers make their living off of people who thought everything would go smoothly, and then it didn't. People think that no one is stupid enough to get hurt by something, or they are confident that they have taken enough precautions. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't.
If something goes wrong with one of these devices, the person who set it up may have to answer for it financially.
ewlyon wrote:
...even a suit completely lacking it in any sort of foundation can cause you significant legal bills just to respond and get it dismissed.
fireman 9731 wrote:
Come on folks, stop living in constant fear of litigation.
Solomonson wrote:
I suspect when you mounted the units, you also positioned them in a way so they aren't aimed at whatever tripped on the trip line...
strambo wrote:
Thanks for posting OP. I too tire of the "liability patrol" as well. Don't buy one and set it up then!