Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!amdahl!canopus
From: canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.politics
Subject: Re: Victim liability - Assembly bill AB 200
Message-ID: <1517@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 12:31:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1517
Posted: Mon May 13 12:31:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 05:30:32 EDT
References: <5225@fortune.UUCP>, <2160@sun.uucp> <440@wjvax.UUCP> <384@rtech.ARPA>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 47
Xref: utcs net.legal:1691 net.politics:8739

> > >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.
> > > 
> 
> 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?
> 
  Assemblyman McAlister had proposed a version of this bill previously
  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.....]