But family will only receive 5 percent of total damages
wrz from Phoenix wrote:"The kayakers should be 100 percent
responsible."And you make that judgment on what basis? Do you
know anything about the actual evidence presented in court? Anything about
rulings the court had already made that affected what the jury could do? How
about the many pages of instructions the jury had to follow in making their
decisions? No, you don't."Why don't you use this
thread to fill the readers in?"I heard six full days of
testimony, so there's really no way to do that. But I will tell you that
based on the evidence presented on both sides, the kayakers were not the only
ones responsible for what happened.By the way, my "give me a
break" comment was meant to describe the general tone of the posts here; I
wasn't trying to give a direct quotation.
If the river is dangerous, why were kayaks allowed?
When something goes wrong, it's obviously someone's fault other than
those involved. The US law suit lottery, isn't it grand?
I, too, would be interested in EditorJack's explanation as to why the
government was responsible.Seems to me, kayaking has some inherent
hazards, and you willingly accept the risk when you push away from the shore.
If you don't know what's downstream, it's YOUR responsibility to
ascertain what lies ahead, and determine whether you have the skills, and are
willing to accept the risk, of proceeding.Years ago, I had a
wonderful opportunity to raft the Grand Canyon, from Lee's Ferry to Lake
Mead. I had to sign a disclaimer, that there were some inherent hazards in such
an adventure and I was willingly accepting the risk. If there were government
warning signs, they must've been obscured by brush. People drown on the
mighty Colorado... fortunately I didn't, but if I had, I can't imagine
holding somebody else responsible!(The end result of our litigious
society... the taxpayers foot the bill, and boating on the Jordan River will be
#EditorJack:"The jury in this case acknowledged that the kayakers did
have some personal responsibility in the drowning..."The
kayakers should be 100 percent responsible. I don't recall the taxpayer
suggesting the kayakers take their chances going over a waterfall. Yet the
taxpayer is held partly responsible. The entire river probably has hundreds of
danger areas. Are they all posted? In fact, the entire river should now be
labeled as 'off limits' to any and all boaters and other users."Those who are saying 'give me a break' about the
jury's decision have little understanding of the facts in the case."Why don't you use this thread to fill the readers in?And it wasn't 'give me a break...' Read it again.
The jury in this case acknowledged that the kayakers did have some personal
responsibility in the drowning, which is one reason West Jordan was held
responsible for only 5 percent of the amount awarded for damages. Those who are
saying "give me a break" about the jury's decision have little
understanding of the facts in the case. Rather than posting their knee-jerk
reaction, they might do better to actually investigate what happened. As a
member of the jury who spent six long days actually LOOKING at the evidence, and
another five hours deliberating on that evidence, I can assure you that this was
NOT a cut-and-dried case; there was plenty of blame to spread around.
Give us a break. Folks who would kayak near a waterfall should be totally
responsible for any damages incurred. They should know there are eddies in
streams that should be avoided. This sets a bad precedent that the government
should identify and post all dangerous situations.On the other hand,
the next time I get a mosquito bite, I'll sue the government for failing to
put up a warning sign.
Two competent grown men, pleasure boating in apparently-ufamiliar waters drown
in a tragic mishap... and it's the government's fault because a
warning sign was obscured?I wasn't in the courtroom, but it
makes me shake my head in dismay that the notion of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY has
apparently been lost. In the 21st Century, if you do something that might call
your judgment into question and have a bad experience, hire an ambulance-chaser
and blame somebody else!
Signage is just about the only way a citizen can win against the government in
wrong doings in Utah. Signage is so much a part of the laws of Utah and
enforcing the laws of Utah that it is their Achilles heel.Every
driving law and violation in posted areas of land are all enforceable because of
the signs posted to do or not do particular actions within posted areas. In this
case it cost the lives of 2 people because of improper posting and maintaining
visibility. There are books and laws regulating the placement and visibility but
governmnet agency's are basically undermanned who depend on complaints or
legal convictions against the agency before signs are maintained to the law.
Every lawful sign has legal descripion of verbiage, height, placement, distances
from obstructions and violation of any deviation to the law is justified law
suits. Signs in school zones are specific and if any thing is done
to improperly post a driving sign, its a beatable infraction by the agency who
posts the signs. I know schools zones signs that are blocked, too high (over 10
feet from ground), or too far from road edge are illegal to the law.