On May 11, 8:51*pm, riverman wrote:
On May 10, 7:33*pm, Larry G wrote:



On May 10, 6:28*am, riverman wrote:

On May 7, 7:05*am, "Cricket" wrote:

"riverman" wrote in message

...
On May 1, 6:53 am, Garrison Hilliard wrote:

Web Produced By: Megan Wasmund
Email:
Last Update: 5:18 pm

(Shannon Kettler, 9News)

The woman who tried to help a man that fell into the Little Miami River
Wednesday is facing charges.

Cherie Moore is charged with operating a watercraft while under the
influence.
Moore was cited and released from police custody.

Curious.

Does this imply that anyone (even a nonpaddling bow passenger) who is
drunk in a canoe is liable for 'operating under the influence'? Do
passengers on a sailboat or motorboat have the same accountability?

--riverman

This sounds more like "stumbling around on a muddy bank while under the
influence", to me.

I suppose technically, unlike a car, more than one person can be operating a
canoe at any given time. *I suppose that enters into what passes for the
reasoning.

Cricket

More than 'technically'...I think, unlike almost every other type of
water- or landcraft, anyone with a paddle in their hands is operating
and controlling a canoe.

For that matter, I wonder if there has ever been any litigation
related to whitewater rafting about the paddlers in the boat sharing
some sort of 'control' of the boat. Any paddle guide knows that you
can usually, but not always, accommodate for the erratic actions of a
crew. A paddling crew that was horribly out of control in a dangerous
situation could easily endanger themselves....why should the guide be
the liable one?

--riverman

ummm.. because you took their money in exchange for putting them on
the river?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, the company took their money, but people still have self-
responsibility. If a paddle crew was just so damn incompetent, or
decided to have an 'extreme day' and secretly decided to sabatoge
their guide by doing exactly the opposite of what he said, and an
accident resulted, I think he could have grounds to sue THEM, as they
were 'operating' the vehicle at the time. Unlike row rigs, where there
is no uncertainty about who is in control, paddle rafts have a
tremendous amount of shared control that is beyond the guide's ability
to compensate for.

The argument could easily be made that the river company was assuming
responsibility, as the experienced party, and the guide's role assumed
some training of the passengers. But in a canoe, there is not that
relationship; back to the original situation....how does the legal
system determine who is the 'operator' in a canoe?

--riverman

I dunno except that some lawyers know the law... like some paddlers
know rivers and I'd not bet against them.
I don't think I've ever heard of an outfitter suing a client but I
suspect it has happened.

See the deal is ..that anyone can sue for just about any reason.. and
then you, as the person being sued have absolutely no choice but to
defend yourself.. and having to hire a lawyer.

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?

On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

On May 18, 9:29*am, riverman wrote:
On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:



In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

yup.... but how would you "prove" this? Wouldn't you have to have
some other customers in the raft on your side?

the folks suing for damages... by the way.. are not going to really
care who gets nailed for the damages... just get them... and sad to
say.... the outfitter/guide, more than likely is going to be held at
least partially responsible... because unless you can prove ... as it
"legally" prove that someone ..on-purpose tried to sabotage - as
opposed to being totally stupid and uncooperative... I just don't see
it succeeding... and once it's is all over... the down-in-the-weeds
legal stuff is going to get forgotten when someone says ...2 years
later.. that the outfitter sued the customers... that's the message
that won't go away ...

"Larry G" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 9:29 am, riverman wrote:
On May 17, 7:13 am, Larry G wrote:



In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

yup.... but how would you "prove" this? Wouldn't you have to have
some other customers in the raft on your side?

the folks suing for damages... by the way.. are not going to really
care who gets nailed for the damages... just get them... and sad to
say.... the outfitter/guide, more than likely is going to be held at
least partially responsible... because unless you can prove ... as it
"legally" prove that someone ..on-purpose tried to sabotage - as
opposed to being totally stupid and uncooperative... I just don't see
it succeeding... and once it's is all over... the down-in-the-weeds
legal stuff is going to get forgotten when someone says ...2 years
later.. that the outfitter sued the customers... that's the message
that won't go away ...

Concord, Calif waterslide park had to pay up lots of money when some high
school kids got killed / injured on a collapsing slide. They pushed by the
worker trying to stop them to make a large train of bodies lined together.
Slide collapsed. Parents of those killed and injured sued and won. The
weight was in excess of a large SUV. So the park has posted rules, and
workers trying to enforce the rules and the people violating the rules on
purpose get the proceeds. Not correct.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=005&sc=310

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...86-5568000_ITM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=099&sc=813

On May 20, 5:49*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Larry G" wrote in message

...
On May 18, 9:29 am, riverman wrote:

On May 17, 7:13 am, Larry G wrote:

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

yup.... but how would you "prove" this? *Wouldn't you have to have
some other customers in the raft on your side?

the folks suing for damages... by the way.. are not going to really
care who gets nailed for the damages... just get them... and sad to
say.... the outfitter/guide, more than likely is going to be held at
least partially responsible... because unless you can prove ... as it
"legally" prove that someone ..on-purpose tried to sabotage - as
opposed to being totally stupid and uncooperative... I just don't see
it succeeding... * *and once it's is all over... the down-in-the-weeds
legal stuff is going to get forgotten when someone says ...2 years
later.. that the outfitter sued the customers... that's the message
that won't go away ...

Concord, Calif waterslide park had to pay up lots of money when some high
school kids got killed / injured on a collapsing slide. *They pushed by the
worker trying to stop them to make a large train of bodies lined together..
Slide collapsed. *Parents of those killed and injured sued and won. *The
weight was in excess of a large SUV. *So the park has posted rules, and
workers trying to enforce the rules and the people violating the rules on
purpose get the proceeds. *Not correct.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/03/MN74124.D...

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...86-5568000_ITM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...5/23/MN56027.D....

not correct...but the way it works...unfortunately.... and the reason
why liability insurance is so high... and in turn why ticket/ride
prices are no cheap.

It only takes one idiot or a group to cause a tragedy and a lot of
lawyers get rich.

The Sierra Club offers outings - to the general public - and the whole
idea has become painful in terms of rules and regs...qualifications of
leaders, etc, because they are paranoid that one big lawsuit will wipe
out their assets.

On May 18, 9:29*am, riverman wrote:
On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:



In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

OK, Myron. Now... just HOW many raft guides can dance on the head of
a pin?

On May 28, 2:29*pm, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
On May 18, 9:29*am, riverman wrote:

On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

OK, Myron. *Now... just HOW many raft guides can dance on the head of
a pin?

is that with or without lawyers ?

On May 29, 2:29*am, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
On May 18, 9:29*am, riverman wrote:

On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

OK, Myron. *Now... just HOW many raft guides can dance on the head of
a pin?

East coast or west coast?

--riverman

On May 28, 1:29*pm, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
On May 18, 9:29*am, riverman wrote:

On May 17, 7:13*am, Larry G wrote:

In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

OK, Myron. *Now... just HOW many raft guides can dance on the head of
a pin?

How many raft guides does it take to change a lightbulb?










Five. One to change the bulb and four to sit around drinking beer
arguing about how big the hole was!

John Kuthe...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...


yup.... but how would you "prove" this? Wouldn't you have to have
some other customers in the raft on your side?

take it to th supreme court

the folks suing for damages... by the way.. are not going to really
care who gets nailed for the damages... just get them... and sad to
say.... the outfitter/guide, more than likely is going to be held at
least partially responsible... because unless you can prove ... as it
"legally" prove that someone ..on-purpose tried to sabotage - as
opposed to being totally stupid and uncooperative... I just don't see
it succeeding... and once it's is all over... the down-in-the-weeds
legal stuff is going to get forgotten when someone says ...2 years
later.. that the outfitter sued the customers... that's the message
that won't go away ...

I understand Sotomayor is liberal on damages


Concord, Calif waterslide park had to pay up lots of money when some high
school kids got killed / injured on a collapsing slide. They pushed by
the worker trying to stop them to make a large train of bodies lined
together. Slide collapsed. Parents of those killed and injured sued and
won. The weight was in excess of a large SUV. So the park has posted
rules, and workers trying to enforce the rules and the people violating
the rules on purpose get the proceeds. Not correct.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=005&sc=310

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...86-5568000_ITM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=099&sc=813

hmmm


mk5000

The complete package
Sotomayor has both legal book smarts and the wisdom to use them well.
Michael B. Keegan

June 1, 2009

President Obama was nothing if not clear when describing the kind of person
who he was looking to nominate to fill the vacancy left by Justice David
Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

He vowed to seek someone with a sharp intellect and an independent mind,
someone who would judge each case on its merits. He said he was looking for
a record of excellence and integrity. A former constitutional law professor,
he made clear that it was important to select someone who has a clear sense
of our Constitution and its history, and is committed to fidelity to the
law.

He also made clear that, although legal brilliance was necessary, it wasn't
totally sufficient to fill the position. Yes, any nominee would need a
record of intellectual achievement and a long résumé, but he or she would
also need an ability to see beyond the legalese and abstract principles of a
ruling, to its real-world impact on the ordinary Americans whose lives are
affected by what happens in the chambers of the Supreme Court. Those
criteria echoed the language he'd used on the campaign trail last year.

In Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama found a candidate who has the complete
package — both legal book smarts and the wisdom to use them well.

Sotomayor comes to this nomination with an "only in America" story.
Sotomayor grew up in a public housing project in the Bronx, N.Y. Her mother,
born in Puerto Rico, held a deep belief in the power of education and worked
long hours to make sure that her children would have the opportunity to take
advantage of what her adopted country had to offer.

Sotomayor graduated first in her high school class and won a scholarship to
Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta
Kappa. At Yale Law School she served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal .

Out of law school, Sotomayor became an assistant district attorney in
Manhattan, where she tried dozens of serious criminal cases. In 1984 she
entered private practice as an international corporate litigator. Before she
was appointed to the federal judiciary in 1991 (by then-President George
H.W. Bush), she'd worked on cases involving everything from intellectual
property to real estate, banking and contract law. When she was appointed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit in 1998, she was the first
Latina to sit on that court.

Now, 18 years later, Sotomayor will bring more federal judicial experience
to the Supreme Court than any justice in the past hundred years, and more
overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed to the Court in the past
70 years.

But Sotomayor brings more than a compelling life story. Sotomayor has a
sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine and a keen awareness of the law's
impact on everyday life. She understands that upholding the rule of law
means ensuring consistent, fair, common sense application of the law to
real-world facts.

She has participated in more than 3,000 panel decisions and authored almost
400 published opinions, a body of work characterized by a close reading of
the law and a consistent awareness of the importance of precedent and
judicial restraint. She's worked to build consensus even on contentious
issues — her record shows that she agrees with her more conservative
colleagues far more frequently than she disagrees with them. And, as many
analysts have already noted, she is also "the woman who saved baseball,"
perhaps the most important qualification of all.

Selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court is a tremendous opportunity for
any president. It's one of the few decisions that can instantly shape his
legacy, for good or ill. President Obama wrote himself an impressively tall
order when he described what he was looking for in a Supreme Court jurist.

But perhaps more impressive is that he actually seems to have found it:
someone who brings not only a sharp intellect but a common sense
understanding of the effect the law has on the lives of ordinary people.

Sotomayor's unique personal story and decadeslong career in nearly every
aspect of the law provide her with ideal qualifications to be the next
Supreme Court justice. And that's exactly what we need on our nation's
highest court.




----- Original Message -----
From: "marika"
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.jap an,soc.culture.australian,alt.usenet.legends.leste r-mosley
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: INTERNATIONAL STUFF | Webby Awards ▪ Green Vault ▪ Merkel’s
Style â–ª Former Couture â–ª Blagojevich



"Frank Kalder" wrote in message
...

M. K. ~ e-glob, Washington, DC

. Barack Obama’s Germany Visit

Here’s a summary of my twofold coverage: http://tinyurl.com/HAPLIF-9605
& http://tinyurl.com/HAPLIF-9606

=======

RIGHT BEFORE Obama went on his overseas trips, he announced his pick,
Sotomayor, for Supreme Court. It's an important issue hotly debated til
the Congressional Hearings.
I thought it might be interesting to contrast a different voice than I had
heard before on this issue

http://townhall.com/Columnists/Thoma...ntext_part_iii


As part of the biographical preoccupation with Judge Sonia Sotomayor's
past, the New York Times of May 31st had a feature story on the various
New York housing projects in which she and other well-known people grew
up-- including Whoopi Goldberg, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Thelonious Monk and
Mike Tyson.


There was a map of New York City and dots pin-pointing the location of the
project in which each celebrity grew up. As an old New Yorker, I was
struck by the fact that not one of the 20 celebrities shown grew up in a
housing project in Harlem!
The housing projects in which they grew up were different in another and
more fundamental way. As the New York Times put it: "These were not the
projects of idle, stinky elevators, of gang-controlled stairwells where
drug deals go down." In other words, these were public housing projects of
an earlier era, when such places were very different from what we
associate with the words "housing project" today.
Just the reference to unlocked doors on the apartments there, so that
children could more easily visit playmates in nearby apartments on
Saturday mornings to watch television, creates an image that must seem
like something out of another world to those familiar only with the
housing projects of today.
There were standards for getting into the projects of those days and, if
you didn't live up to those standards, they put you out. Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar was quoted as saying, "When kids played on the grass, their
parent would get a warning." That seems almost quaint when you think of
what has gone on in the housing projects of a later era.
Since there has been so much talk of putting some of Sonia Sotomayor's
inflammatory words "in context," perhaps we should put her personal life
in context, if the media insist on making her personal life a factor in
her nomination to the Supreme Court. While she grew up in a public housing
project, the words "housing project" in that era did not mean anything
like the housing projects of today.
A relative of mine lived in one of the housing projects back then-- and we
were proud of him, as well as glad for him, because such places were for
upright citizens in those days-- working class people with steady jobs and
good behavior. Clever intellectuals had not yet taught us to be
"non-judgmental" about misbehavior or to make excuses for vandalism and
crime.