Liability Ruling Hypocracy

[Eric P]

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/electric-scooter-crash-lawsuit/73-8f48cb1c-5857-4ccc-a644-c250092970e5?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR16LnLgKzBB UFNAIWsLnXSYKR6IjthgOaCH7gmBYPHYDww-Kqf-pgSp4NE_aem_f_YtJT0mIPuHCUCRM1JFkw


So the Colorado SC ruled that a vendor/manufacturer is not liable for the misuse of thier product/service by thier customers.

So following the logic in this ruling, would this negate the firearms manufacturer/retailer liability laws? If these products are legal and legally sold, how can they beheld liable for the misuse of those legally purchased goods. Goods they no longer have control of after being legally sold to a state approved (thru a background check and wait time) customer?

[.455_Hunter]

Lime scooters are a progressive socially acceptable product.

Firearms are NOT a progressive socially acceptable product.

[BushMasterBoy]

That why I drive an old 3/4 ton pickup truck. Less likely to be injured in it. F global warming and all the leftist political garbage. Youngsters drive by me at 100mph with no concern for anybodys safety. F them too. F the courts and their corporate sponsors too.

[FoxtArt]

Almost all of our countries issues stem from the courts if you look deeply enough. The representative and executive branches were ahead of their time. The restorative branch, unfortunately, was not envisioned and is still missing. (A branch to clean the crap out of the other 3, sorry, DOGE does not have enough authority to be successful)

But the judicial.... the judical was copied from the worst concepts of medieval justice and law, and has not ever been modernized. The judicial, at it's core, has single, independent judges rewriting legislation, constitutional rights, and executive orders to conform to their individual biases and whims, and have the ultimate power over the entire government, ensuring their own existance above all else. They are career safe and virtually beyond all reproach, as they always have been.

And we have a million pages of contradicting judicial opinions to support whatever-the-fuck any judge wants to do at any time. A true system of justice is required to be consistent.

Point being, it's not the Colorado Supreme Court. It's the whole fucking system, from top to bottom. Judges should not exist in 2024, just as a plague doctor has no business seeing patients in the halls of a modern hospital.

[Sawin]

Ok fine.Lets have AI consume all legal precedents and apply the law and pass judgments, instead… half serious….

[FoxtArt]

Throw out the legal precedents and the rules of evidence.

Honestly, I think we should have jurors like we have uber drivers. Side gigs for anyone from the McDonalds worker to the attorney to earn a few dollars on the side.
The founding fathers did not like the concept of professional jurors, but they also came from a different era and illiteracy was much more common. They also completely fucked up the judicial model, taking it from the wrong era. So, in this instance, I'm not afraid to say they didn't just screw the pooch, it died and bled out.

Every case should be overseen by multiple people. There shouldn't be a judge that decides what evidence they can and can't review.

Most critically, the rules of evidence need to be thrown out the window, with the "trial".

1) Instead, a jury should do an initial review of a case where the parties present what they think matters. No judge, no direction from some piece of shit on what they can or can't see.
2) Any evidence that the opposing party wants to contest, they can do it at that time (That paper is forged!).
3) Then, the jurors deliberate, and stand in the shoes of each party to determine what kind of evidence or witnesses matter to the jury's determination.
4) Then the parties are told what witnesses or evidence to bring that matters to the jurors in determining their case.
5) Any contested evidence has to be authenticated. A party that challenges evidence that is ultimately authenticated will have adverse consideration in the weight, in wasting the time and resources of all involved.
6) Similarly, any fraudulent evidence will result in the loss of a case.
7) Then the parties return at a later date. If they can present the witnesses and evidence the jurors care about, then they're going to win. If they can't, it's clear who should prevail.


How it works now:
1) A judge oversees an entire pretrial process for months, to years before any jury selection occurs. The judge, in reading the complaint and through the motion practice, discovery and other processes, already develops a bias of which party they want to win months or years before jury selection ever occurs.
2) A judge then determines what evidence a party can submit before trial, with motions in limine and other practices. They can also change requirements at any time. For example, suddenly, you have to file 10 copies of all of your exhibits in the courthouse with only 24 hours notice, or you can't introduce anything. Impeachment evidence? Hah, nope. At trial, through the rules of evidence, if a judge doesn't favor a party, he can require they authenticate every piece of evidence or it's thrown out. Want to submit a cancelled check? Did you fly the bank executives in at a cost of $20,000 to authenticate it? Sorry, not admitted, the jury doesn't get to see it. Have a notarized statement from 15 individual witnesses to a car accident that were on a travel bus? Did you fly all fifteen of them in? Sorry, non-admissable hearsay. HOWEVER, If the judge favors a party, he can conversely do the exact opposite. Have a simple story written on notebook paper that you claim a non-present witness wrote attesting to your position (not even notarized)? Sure! Admitted! It's all in their discretion. Arguing over the admission of evidence often consumes about 25% of the precious little trial time a party even has.
3) In many cases, especially complex cases, it would take days to present it to the jury. But the judge controls his own schedule, and it's completely acceptable to give a party a two hour slot to present a seven-day case. Imagine trying to tell your coworkers about an argument with your boss, and having only 45 seconds to do it, and you're forced to bring in your boss to read the emails you allege he wrote, you can't just tell your story. That's a modern courtroom.
4) The parties have to guess as to what evidence is important in the mind of a jury.
2) The parties cherry pick a couple testimony and evidence from their case, and burn a ton of time arguing about admission. The jury gets about 8% of the story, and is subtley lead by comments by the judge into delivering the outcome desired by the judge.
6) Then the judge decides sentencing (or often the judgment) regardless, making the jury entirely moot.
7) If there's evidence that would've been a key determination in the minds eye of the jury or judge, it's shit outta' luck.
8) If there's legitimate evidence that a party is denied by a judge - either in advance of trial, or during trial (did you fly in the bank exec?) they are shit outta' luck. Even if they could, after the fact, fly in that executive.
9) Appeals don't actually exist. That's an entirely different topic. [And I've won a lot of appeals). In the way everyone envisions an appeal, they don't exist.

The concept of a one-and-done trial doesn't work with human psychology. What matters to Bob isn't what matters to Steve. And every person alive has biases. You can only attempt to overcome those by having multiple people.

[Oscar77]

Way Way TOOOOO long........... didn't read.

Yes, one can make arguments the legal system is flawed.
And you are one burned out citizen, attorney or whatever you do.
It's clear you either work in or around the court system and make some very valid points.......... but you need to take a long vacation and find a new career.

And the power that the jurors have is more than enough.................. They don't want to be there for a day, an hour, or even a minute. 99.9% are, really, not there by choice. They just didn't know how to get out of it.
And those 99.9% who are stuck doing it............really don't want to make any decisions about the court case..........they literally don't want to "stand and judge someone."
So to think they would suddenly take some vested interest in this ............ well.......... is nonsense.
And if you thought Judges have made some weird or even criminal decisions.............. it would take the jury led system about a day to truly mess EVERYTHING up.

[buffalobo]

So back on topic.

Hypocritical ruling? No, correct ruling in my opinion.

The hypocritical ruling is the one that holds gun manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their products by customers.

Even with this ruling being correct, the Colorado Supreme court still sucks. Crooked commie bastiges.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

[Eric P]

So back on topic.

Hypocritical ruling? No, correct ruling in my opinion.

The hypocritical ruling is the one that holds gun manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their products by customers.

Even with this ruling being correct, the Colorado Supreme court still sucks. Crooked commie bastiges.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

Not saying the ruling was incorrect.

Asking if the logic used in this case can be used to nullify the silly gun laws allowing manufacturers to be held liable.

[buffalobo]

Not saying the ruling was incorrect.

Asking if the logic used in this case can be used to nullify the silly gun laws allowing manufacturers to be held liable.

Should be but commie bastages on CSC will never allow it.

[eddiememphis]

Throw out the legal precedents and the rules of evidence.

Honestly, I think we should have jurors like we have uber drivers. Side gigs for anyone from the McDonalds worker to the attorney to earn a few dollars on the side.

Who is going to pay for it?

The government can't afford it plus that would be the prosecution paying the jurors. Don't want the defendants paying the jurors either and often times they can't afford it.

[FoxtArt]

Who is going to pay for it?

The government can't afford it plus that would be the prosecution paying the jurors. Don't want the defendants paying the jurors either and often times they can't afford it.

It wouldn't be any more expensive than taxpayers paying a judge. Judicial salaries are usually absurd. 150k / year into 6 people is 25k / year for each. Not a bad side gig for people with no net impact to county coffers.

(and then the people deciding justice are more often "peers" then 150k/year egotistical blowhards in gated communities)

[OneGuy67]

It wasn't a Colorado Supreme Court decision, it was the Colorado Court of Appeals. One step below. The plaintiff can still appeal to the Colorado SC if she wishes. Probably won't change the opinion though.

[BushMasterBoy]

Just make everybody wear a body cam. Courts can rarely argue the video/audio is wrong.