[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

What I'd like to know is how this came to be law to begin with. I keep thinking about that case of the burglar injuring himself when he broke into that home undergoing renos. I mean the gall to file the lawsuit in the first place.....

And seriously, how many people would read that judgement and consider it to be good an fair? It's completely absurd.

I realize you shouldn't be allowed to booby trap your property but you shouldn't have to make sure it's 100% safe in the off chance someone breaks in either.

Originally Posted by polak

I'm guessing a good lawyer pointing out to the burglar that maybe they could sue for them not taking due care to ensure the safety of anyone on the property? Invited or not.

Nah it is more on the courts for handing down the decisions.

You see the same thing with monetary awards, some of them are totally crazy.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...ocompletePos=1

Plaintiff’s vehicle totalled $986.40.

In summary, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was fully disabled and unable to work by reason of the accident beyond the date of the surveillance video, being March 7, 2008. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages only up to that date. Those damages include general damages in the amount of $50,000, special damages of $5,130.59 and loss of past income of $273,735 for a total of $328,865.59.

[393] In the event that I am wrong in my finding that the Plaintiff’s disability did not extend beyond March 7, 2008, I find the Defendant liable for general damages in the amount of $110,000, special damages of $10,808.05, lost income of $492,889 and cost of future care of $23,792.46 for a total of $637,489.51. .

Enjoy