“When harm is suffered as the direct result of reckless disregard for the law and one’s own safety while in perpetration of a crime…”?
In thinking about it, I don’t know if “crime” is the key word or if defining the specific behavior and determining a direct causal relationship is.
In the gum example, the gum is unrelated to damage suffered and walking around a store isn’t reckless. So the wording above would exclude that situation with “direct result” and “reckless”.
In the example of the car accident, I think it would depend on the circumstances. Going 80 in a 70 is different than going 110 in a 70. The term “reckless” and “disregard for one’s own safety” would help create the distinction.
We have to be careful to stay away from verbiage that describes intent.
I think including language like, “…with flagrant disregard for public safety.”
This would build in severity tests.
Is that useful, or detrimental to the intent of this proposal?
Ultimately each State would need to craft their own version of this idea, and in so doing, would choose inclusions and exemptions that made sense to them.
I would be resistant to this coming down from a Federal level. All the specific behavioral laws should be left to the States. I feel that way, these things can be better controlled by the people.
The last thing we need right now, is more regulations coming down from on high. Lets have the Citizens of each State decide how they want to live their lives and leave the Feds out of it.
It might be good to list out the scenarios in which filing a suit could be barred. Theft, which seems to be the primary example here involves several potential violations of the law; i.e. trespassing.
There might not be a good 'blanket statement’for situations like this.
Perhaps further refinement would make it more practical. You can always sue for damages but if you are convinced of the crime, the complaint is voided and you are responsible for all costs incurred including defendants attorney fees and hourly wage for time spent addressing the suit times 3.5X for inflation.
while this has never happened, it can happen. In April of 2014 a homeowner recklessly shot a man in the leg who was breaking into his garage. The burgler was convicted and he actually sued the homeowner and won.
When I was young, a man broke into an elderly woman’s house in a nearby town. Hearing something, she came out from her bedroom, turned the corner and was at the top of her stairs. The man was nearly to the top of the stairs when she appeared, startling him. He fell backwards down the stairs breaking his leg in 3 places. He sued the elderly woman and won a $300,000 settlement in 1983 dollars. I know this happened because my cousin was one of the paramedics who responded. My father told me if i ever had to shoot an intruder, make sure he was dead, because he’d sue otherwise. I’m guessing it’s not common, but it’s not as rare as it should be.
The home invasion story further makes the point that has been in debate here.
For this idea to be made into law, by whichever States choose to adopt it, there will need to be circumstances defined.
Clearly, there are different levels of severity in the crime of trespassing. Someone in your garage as opposed to someone at the top of your stairs. While both of those are crimes, one is the right to protect one’s property and the other is the right to protect one’s life.
Maybe an easy way to structure the verbiage of this proposal would be to include the word, "Felony ".
No because District Attorneys and criminals often negotiate plea deals reducing felonies to misdemeanors. Also in leftist states they often fail to prosecute at all leaving the citizen on the hook even if the criminal was breaking the law. It would be best to state something like the following;
Proposed Law Verbiage:
Section 1: Immunity from Civil Liability
Any individual who is about to engage in, engaged in, or has just engaged in unlawful activity shall be barred from initiating or maintaining any civil lawsuit for injuries or damages sustained as a direct or indirect result of such unlawful activity.
Section 2: Legal and Fiscal Responsibility
Any individual engaging in unlawful activity, as well as any person who aids or abets such activity, shall be automatically deemed legally and fiscally responsible for all damages or injuries resulting from the unlawful activity.
This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, any costs incurred for medical expenses, property damage, or other compensatory damages arising from the unlawful activity.
Section 3: Definitions
For the purposes of this law:
“Unlawful activity” refers to any act that violates local, state, or federal law.
“Aid and abet” refers to any assistance or encouragement provided to another person to commit an unlawful act.
Section 4: Severability
If any provision of this law is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.