S
speeddemon
Guest
It is the owners responsibility to watch over the dog.
Dog Bite: To Sue Or Not To Sue
- Thread starter brownclown
- Start date
W
who me
Guest
Isn't it illegal to record someone on a phone without thier knowledge? If you do know you are being taped and say something stupid then you deserve what you get.dannyboy said:
You want to sue them for lost wages & benefits...but YOU willingly volunteered to take those days off, without pay? You had no medical restrictions, so your reason for doing that was...?
You didn't "lose" anything, you surrendered it.
It doesn't sound like much of a lawsuit. Sorry about the dog bite, however. Hope you are fully recovered. I have had many close calls, but not actual chomping...yet.
You didn't "lose" anything, you surrendered it.
It doesn't sound like much of a lawsuit. Sorry about the dog bite, however. Hope you are fully recovered. I have had many close calls, but not actual chomping...yet.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Who
The way I understand the law, as long as one person on the conversation is aware of the taping taking place, it is legal. The other person does not need to be aware of the taping.
We used to have a sup that liked to tell drivers to do something, and then when they did, tried to fire them. After I recorded several conversations with him, that behavior with me stopped. Last I heard, he was promoted to Atlanta.
d
The way I understand the law, as long as one person on the conversation is aware of the taping taking place, it is legal. The other person does not need to be aware of the taping.
We used to have a sup that liked to tell drivers to do something, and then when they did, tried to fire them. After I recorded several conversations with him, that behavior with me stopped. Last I heard, he was promoted to Atlanta.
d
A
Anonymous Fred
Guest
dannyboy said:
are you referring to me?
do you propose the parents keep their 8 year old on a leash?
The kid was in his/her parents house! You want to sue because the kid opened the door to go outside to play with his dog?
Judge Wapner would have a field day with you!
Fred
A
Anonymous Poster
Guest
dannyboy said:
The laws reagrding taping a phone conversation vary from state to state. What may be legal in TN may be illegal elsewhere.
W
who me
Guest
Yeah but that would have to be the person being recorded not the person doing the recording.Kinda like the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinsky scandel,Linda Tripp recorded Monica's conversation but they couldn't use it because she(Monica) didn't know she was being recorded right?Of course the blue dress will Bills DNA was his demise to admitting what happened.dannyboy said:
I still think it is very illegal to record someone on a phone w/o their knowledge and use it for your advantage.Unless you have a warrant.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Getting information and being able to use it in court are two different things. As for just in Tennessee, sorry. The way I understand the law it is federal issue. As I stated, as long as one person on the phone is aware and gives their permission to the conversation, it is legal.
Wonderboy
You are not suing the kid, you are suing the parents. The same parents that you would sue should the 8 year old take the car out for a joy ride.
Sides, the kid was opening the door for the UPS man, remember? And whether or not the kid knew or wanted the dog to bite the UPS man, the parents and the home owners insurance are liable for the dog doing damage.
Geez Gomer. And I am sure someone with your capability could probably practice in Wapners court, but it would have to be under the Americans with disabilities act.
Damn, how insensitive of me. Lumping Americans with disabilities and wonderboy together.
d
Wonderboy
You are not suing the kid, you are suing the parents. The same parents that you would sue should the 8 year old take the car out for a joy ride.
Sides, the kid was opening the door for the UPS man, remember? And whether or not the kid knew or wanted the dog to bite the UPS man, the parents and the home owners insurance are liable for the dog doing damage.
Geez Gomer. And I am sure someone with your capability could probably practice in Wapners court, but it would have to be under the Americans with disabilities act.
Damn, how insensitive of me. Lumping Americans with disabilities and wonderboy together.
d
Last edited:
A
Anonymous Poster
Guest
You may want to check here before you break the law:dannyboy said:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
W
wonderboy Fred
Guest
What ever you say when you talk to the Insurance Company...
don't mention that it was an <b><i>8 year old child </i></b>that opened the door to his house ....or
CASE CLOSED!
doofisboy....can you site one example of Parents being successfully sued for the negligent acts of an 8 year old child?
didn't think so.
Fred
don't mention that it was an <b><i>8 year old child </i></b>that opened the door to his house ....or
CASE CLOSED!
doofisboy....can you site one example of Parents being successfully sued for the negligent acts of an 8 year old child?
didn't think so.
Fred
Dutch Dawg
Well-Known Member
FEGuy said:
I'd have to agree with FEGuy. As most of the comments in this thread center on the homeowner liability issue. One might conclude from lack of discussion, this event did not cause life threatening or debilitating injuries that could inhibit your future earnings potential or sexual performance. Rise above the mentality of being made whole again thru monetary compensation. An unfortunate occurrance indeed, learn from it, get over it and move on.
, You were harmed, it is their responsibilty, and if they were stand up people they would have contacted you and tried to make it right. If they did not, then they need to be taught, if they did, then I would not sue. But to have people be irresponsible and not held accountable, seems to be the rage. With warmer weather their will be more incidents, why should we pay the price, and the slackers say "oh well sucks to be you". I think it should suck to be them. We have enough to worry about on the road, this is just one more thing. And if you go up on a porch and you knew the dog was there, will you be charged with an avoidable injury? Think about it people. They were totally at fault, they are responsible for the child not knowing to not let the dog meet the delivery person, the usps guy, or the jehovahs witness on the porch!! An 8 yr old is plenty old enough to know that. JMHO
W
wonderboy Fred
Guest
over9five said:
More bad advice from a regular...
The only party that will lose money in this lawsuit is the party that tries to sue for damages resulting from negligence by an 8 year old child.
The plaintiff of this frivolous lawsuit will pay for his own attorney fees as well as those of the defendent.
Fred
trickpony1
Well-Known Member
Wonderboy,
So tell us........
where did you get your doctorate in jurisprudence?
So tell us........
where did you get your doctorate in jurisprudence?
A
Anonymous Poster
Guest
dannyboy said:
You forgot to read the rest of the paragraph, oh wise one:
A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as \"one-party consent\" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as \"two-party consent\" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
brownclown
Member
Lively discussion here. I was hoping to update last night but had some issues logging in. I will hopefully have some time this evening.
W
wonderboy Fred
Guest
trickpony1 said:
people's court
natually
Fred
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Fred sweetie, I have personal knowledge where the child committed an act of stupidity (negligence) caused damage and the parents were held financially liable for the damage that was caused by the child. So your BS about it being a lost cause because the negligence of the child does not float. But then again sweetie, you have changed the focus of the discussion.
The dog actually caused the damage, and the owner of the animal is always responsible for any damage that the animal does, regardless of how the animal was able to cause the damage. The 8 year old letting the dog out is being used by you as a smoke screen for your ignorance of the law, or for arguments sake.
Regards
d
The dog actually caused the damage, and the owner of the animal is always responsible for any damage that the animal does, regardless of how the animal was able to cause the damage. The 8 year old letting the dog out is being used by you as a smoke screen for your ignorance of the law, or for arguments sake.
Regards
d
