# Does NOT salting absolve one from liability?



## recycledsole (Nov 11, 2012)

I am very new and have heard a lot about slip and fall claims. Wondering if nut offering salt / deicing will allow me not to be liable?
Thanks


----------



## 1olddogtwo (Aug 6, 2007)

you'll always be liable, simple as that.


----------



## recycledsole (Nov 11, 2012)

Wow. So what about all the kids shoveling walk ways?


----------



## dieselss (Jan 3, 2008)

Hate to say this but, since this is the second time you've posted about salting and slip and falls. Why not just go to work for a snow company? That way your not held liable. S


----------



## SnowGuy73 (Apr 7, 2003)

1olddogtwo;1886057 said:


> you'll always be liable, simple as that.


This......


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

dieselss;1886086 said:


> Hate to say this but, since this is the second time you've posted about salting and slip and falls. Why not just go to work for a snow company? That way your not held liable. S


His boss would be, but that's his problem, eh ?

He's obviously been made aware of the hazards of snow removal services, and attempting to get away with being "unliable".


----------



## snocrete (Feb 28, 2009)

1olddogtwo;1886057 said:


> you'll always be liable, simple as that.





SnowGuy73;1886089 said:


> This......


You guys attorneys? Didn't think so.....OP, go talk to an attorney....Fact is, its NOT that simple.


----------



## 1olddogtwo (Aug 6, 2007)

snocrete;1886125 said:


> You guys attorneys? Didn't think so.....OP, go talk to an attorney....Fact is, its NOT that simple.


Common sense doesnt cost anything...... OMG

People are sued happy.....all day, everyday for the hell of it. What you are implying is there is a out.....you seem to have a out for everything in life.

The real question should be held "responsible".


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

1olddogtwo;1886132 said:


> Common sense doesnt cost anything...... OMG
> 
> .


If you're involved in any way, most likely you would be sued. Will they win ? That question is for the courts to decide.

I know a painting contractor who was hired to paint a "yellow" curb out in front of a strip mall. The "warning paint" on the curb had worn off, and the owner of the strip mall was being responsible and hired a painting contractor to repaint the curb so idiots (and us)  wouldn't slip on it.

6 months go by, and the curb was wet from a rain storm. Lady stepped on it, slipped and fell on the curb, cracking her hip on the "yellow" (hey, biach, I'm obviously here on the ground under your feet) curb. She sued and EVERYONE was brought into the lawsuit, including the poor painting contractor who painted the curb 6 months prior. Since he had no "coverage" for this on his policy, he wound up being held partially responsible for causing her injuries.

He lost his business, and had to go work for someone else.

So, yes... people suck (especially greedy lawyers) Nothing you can do about it in this day and age, other than to purchase policies to cover you should someone get hurt where you were last.


----------



## snocrete (Feb 28, 2009)

1olddogtwo;1886132 said:


> Common sense doesnt cost anything...... OMG
> 
> *I agree, but it dosent have anything thing to do with that*
> 
> ...


Now go clean up the **** in ferguson


----------



## JB1 (Dec 29, 2006)

recycledsole;1886085 said:


> Wow. So what about all the kids shoveling walk ways?


there aint nothing to get from the kids.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Dogplow Dodge;1886148 said:


> If you're involved in any way, most likely you would be sued. Will they win ? That question is for the courts to decide.
> 
> I know a painting contractor who was hired to paint a "yellow" curb out in front of a strip mall. The "warning paint" on the curb had worn off, and the owner of the strip mall was being responsible and hired a painting contractor to repaint the curb so idiots (and us)  wouldn't slip on it.
> 
> ...


You know a lot about that case, so much in fact you should be able to give us the names on the case, like Jones vs Timmy's mall, case # XYZ.

the guy who was hired has , had no liability.

or it's just here say....


JB1;1886165 said:


> there aint nothing to get from the kids.


but their parents do. If your kid does something , the parents are responsible

DETROIT (AP) -Francisco Garces stopped at a grocery store in western Michigan but left with injuries after falling in the icy parking lot. When he sued, he didn't get sympathy from the state appeals court: The judges said he could have shopped elsewhere.Slip-and-fall lawsuits, once a staple for injury attorneys, have become extremely difficult in Michigan courts, especially after another strict standard was set last summer by the state Supreme Court. Feet flying in the air because of water, ice or snow? Case dismissed - unless someone absolutely can't avoid the hazard
detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/12/27/slip-and-fall-cases-tough-to-make-in-michigan-courts/

What constitutes "premises liability" under Minnesota law?

Answer:
Premises liability refers to the body of law, which holds a landowner and/or possessor of real property liable for injuries to others who suffer injury on their property. In Minnesota, a premises liability lawsuit often arises from the property owner's or occupant's failure to maintain the property in a safe condition or failure to correct a dangerous condition on their property, which they knew about or upon reasonable inspection, should have known about.

if the ice forms naturally you or anyone else is liable,
if the ice is from a down spout the buildings owner is liable.

Who is responsible for a slip and fall accident? The owner or the person injured?

Answer:
The general rule of law is that the owner or operator of the premises has a duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition or at least warn individuals of dangerous conditions of which the owner or possessor of the land either caused, knew about or should have known about.

What is "comparative negligence?"

Answer:
Comparative negligence is the law that governs all negligence accidents in the State of Minnesota. Comparative negligence is typically a fact determination for a jury in which they are asked to compare the fault of the person who is making the claim and the fault for the person who is said to have caused the claim. If the person who is bringing the claim's negligence is determined to be greater than that of the person who is claimed to have caused the injury, then that person is not entitled to recover.

Latest Slip and Fall New York Injury Cases - 2 out of 3 Dismissed Before Trial
Slip and fall injury cases in New York are quite common. They are also among the most difficult to win for the injured party. All three cases in the latest round of slip and fall trial court decisions released in New York are from accidents in the winter of 2006-2007. Two were dismissed on motions for summary judgment by the defense and only one is being permitted to proceed to trial.

To win a case, a plaintiff must show:

the defendant caused or created the dangerous condition or
had actual (someone told him) notice of the dangerous condition (the wet floor) or
had constructive notice - i.e., the condition was present for a long enough time that the defendant should have known about it and had time to correct it.

Slip and fall cases -often result in very serious injuries such as hip fractures, wrist fractures and shoulder injuries. Injured parties often think that simply because they fell on someone else's property which was dangerously wet there must be liability against the property owner. Not so. Not even close.

Your Own Carelessness

In almost every slip or trip and fall case, you must decide whether your carelessness contributed to the accident. The rules of "comparative negligence" help measure your own reasonableness in going where you did, in the way you did, just before the accident happened. There are some questions you should ask yourself about your own conduct -- an insurance adjuster will almost certainly ask them after you file your claim.

Did you have a legitimate reason -- a reason the owner should have anticipated -- for being where the dangerous area was?
Would a careful person have noticed the dangerous spot and avoided it, or walked carefully enough not to slip or trip?
Were there any warnings that the spot might be dangerous?
Were you doing anything that distracted you from paying attention to where you were going, or were you running, jumping, or fooling around in a way that made falling more likely?


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Massachusetts Snow Removal Law: Slip and Fall on Snow and Ice

Posted by Peter Georgiou on November 23, 2012 · Leave a Comment 

The Massachusetts snow removal law holds that property owners are responsible for slip and fall injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow or ice.

In Papadopoulos vs. Target, the old Massachusetts snow removal law – which distinguished liability based on the “natural” and “unnatural” accumulations of snow and ice – was overruled. Since that ruling, property owners must be extremely aware of the conditions outside their windows.
------
If an employee slips and falls on snow and ice that accumulated outside of a building at which she worked, who is liable for the injuries? Does the snow removal contractor bear some responsibility? In March, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, addressed that very question in Williams v. Sebert Landscape Company,Â No. 1â€“10â€“1794.

In Williams,the personal injury plaintiff was injured when she walked out of her place of employment, the post office. As she walked across the parking lot, towards her car, she slipped and fell on a patch of ice.Â She alleged that the ice had accumulated from a melted runoff from a pile of snow left in the middle of the lot a few days earlier by the snow removal contractor.

The Court explained that Sebert, the snow removal contractor, owed the plaintiff the duty of care owed in an ordinary negligence case, since it did not have the power to control over the property by excluding people from entering the property and thus did not stand in the shoes of the owner of the property:

Nothing in the record indicates that Sebert intended to exert control over the parking lot in any way…(and therefore)Â Williams had to establish ordinary negligence and not the heightened standard for an owner-occupier…(Accordingly)Â if Sebert had negligently plowed the parking lot at the Busse Highway property and that negligence was the proximate cause of Williams’ injury, then Sebert is liable.

The general rule for premise liability is that one of three conditions must exist for an owner/possessor to be charged with premise liability in a slip and fall accident case. The owner/possessor must have:

Caused the dangerous condition that resulted in a slip and fall accident, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability
Known about the dangerous condition that resulted in a slip and fall accident and left it uncorrected, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability
Allowed property maintenance to lapse beyond what is reasonable, leaving a dangerous condition uncorrected and leading to a slip and fall accident, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability

Ice and snow conditions are a bit different from other standard conditions under premise liability law and may require the advice of a lawyer. Generally, an owner/possessor is not responsible for ice and snow. It is often assumed that reasonable people would either not be out in dangerous conditions, would dress appropriately for the conditions, or would assume liability for being out in dangerous conditions.


----------



## Kevin_NJ (Jul 24, 2003)

This reminds me of something that happened at work years ago (before I began plowing). A few days after a snowfall my parked truck was t-boned by a guy that lost control on ice in the parking lot. The ice formed from run off from the piles that froze overnight. We had the police come to file a report for the insurance claim, he almost went down on his azz getting out of his car.

I suggested to the guy that hit me our employer and/or contractor that maintained the lot was somewhat negligent for not having the lot treated (they very rarely treated after the storm). He spoke with the General Affairs woman and she basically told him he was an idiot and neither company held any responsibility.

I always wondered about that.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

k1768;1886255 said:


> This reminds me of something that happened at work years ago (before I began plowing). A few days after a snowfall my parked truck was t-boned by a guy that lost control on ice in the parking lot. The ice formed from run off from the piles that froze overnight. We had the police come to file a report for the insurance claim, he almost went down on his azz getting out of his car.
> 
> I suggested to the guy that hit me our employer and/or contractor that maintained the lot was somewhat negligent for not having the lot treated (they very rarely treated after the storm). He spoke with the General Affairs woman and she basically told him he was an idiot and neither company held any responsibility.
> 
> I always wondered about that.


That one depends on your state,
Some cite that the water draining from a pile that refreezes on the lot is a liability as the pile didn't naturally form. It was put there.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Your own contract maybe putting the liababelity back on you.

Do you say things like "bare pavement"?
ice removed, etc etc boasting or spelling out what your service will do?
you may want to rethink this and if your lawyer looked it over you will want to go back and ask WTF.

Riley was able to settle a slip and fall where the accident coincidentally occurred across the street from the courthouse in a bar parking lot. In that case, the owner of the *property testified that his policy was to clean the pavement down to the asphalt*, according to Riley. However, the plaintiff and an independent witness said the pavement was not clean at the time of the accident, Riley said, adding that the defendant could not refute their testimony. The theory of the case was that the defendant essentially had breached a duty that he himself had established, which in essence "trumped" the plaintiff's duty to maintain a lookout, said Riley.

Many times cases fail because plaintiffs are unable to establish the length of time the slippery condition existed, Thomas continued. The defendant has no duty to do anything until the hazardous weather has cleared up and so the climatological data may be important evidence, he noted.

Once the snow or rain has subsided, the defendant still must have actual or constructive notice of the condition in order for a duty to arise. The issue of notice is tied into the issue of the duration of the weather because generally constructive notice requires proof that the danger had existed for an appreciable time.


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

SnoFarmer;1886202 said:


> You know a lot about that case, so much in fact you should be able to give us the names on the case, like Jones vs Timmy's mall, case # XYZ.
> 
> the guy who was hired has , had no liability.
> 
> or it's just here say....


Here say, or hearsay ?

Yeah, I'm going to give out my buddies name, address, birthday, SS# and the address where his 14 year old daughter is having an "un supervised" sleepover, so you can just pop over....

Yeah.....


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Dogplow Dodge;1886382 said:


> Here say, or hearsay ?
> 
> Yeah, I'm going to give out my buddies name, address, birthday, SS# and the address where his 14 year old daughter is having an "un supervised" sleepover, so you can just pop over....
> 
> Yeah.....


Thumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs Up
If ya can't win the discussion, you can always correct their grammar. The battle cry of the ......looser
who u the grammar police...
I've read your posts too and you really shouldn't be trowing stones.

a case # or a "who VS. who" is a far cry from what your saying.

ether way...
there is no way the painter was liable..
so I'm calling BS.

cite the case, # where it was filed and the names on the case,

like, " Timmy trips VS the C store"
as it is PUBLIC knowledge, the case is also posted on line by the court, for ALL to see as it is public knowledge.

Every case that I have been named in you can find on line.

ps the case # is not his SS# that has nothing to do with it nor will it help in tracking down the case you cite. nor did i ask for it.


----------



## drewberryfresh (Dec 20, 2014)

http://jacksonokeefe.com/personal-injury/connecticut-attorneys-for-snow-and-ice-falls#.VKDm3F4BA


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

drewberryfresh;1913199 said:


> http://jacksonokeefe.com/personal-injury/connecticut-attorneys-for-snow-and-ice-falls#.VKDm3F4BA


yes, yes, and every state see's it different.

I wanted the case# for the painters law suite that was cited above,

As all of the cases i have brought or have been in are all posted on line as they are public knowledge.

Your not going to get the password to their web cam so you can look at their daughters...
so, I dont understand the paranoia.


----------



## Mr.Markus (Jan 7, 2010)

Could you post up a link to all the cases you've been in, no snow gives me time to read....


----------



## gc3 (Dec 6, 2007)

Interesting stuff SnoFarmer. 
Question for all the 20 regulars that post here everyday. When it comes to slip & falls have any of you been taken to court and sued because someone fell in a lot you maintained? Did you win or lose? How many times have you been sued since you started your plowing business?


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Mr.Markus;1913474 said:


> Could you post up a link to all the cases you've been in, no snow gives me time to read....


the car case has not been posted and the other has nothing to do with snow.

but im sure someone who is lurking will post it up for me.
(as it has been posted in the past)

my point is if your gong to use" hear say", it didn't happen.
and that is my position, that and the painter was not responsible.
prove me wrong.


----------



## framer1901 (Dec 18, 2005)

Three slip and falls reported over the years - two reported to the insurance company and zero payout.

1) A lot we plowed and salted on demand - lady fell between cars. Site manager calls after the fact and demands the parking lot is 100% black and wet - it'd snowed for days in a row and over that time he didn't want to salt till after the snow stopped, there was an inch of hard pack and it took two saltings and another plowing to get the lot back to black - his net savings was zero. I received a letter from the ladies attorney, forwarded it to our insurance and due to the salt and plow on demand, not being asked to salt etc.., we were never sued nor paid anything. Lesson learned - no more plow and salt on demand in those situations - we do still salt on call for a few places but document the schnizzle out of it.

2) A lady slip and fell on a sidewalk, broke her leg. We salt the walks but hadn't that night for some reason or another. Both the complex and us had the same insurance company - there was some back and forth as to who was going to get charged for this, us or them. We weren't but don't know if they were either. The complex provided salt buckets for residents to use if needed. This was close, lesson learned, always always salt the walks, even if it's questionable.

3) Another lady slip and fell in a lot that we partially salted - she fell in an area that was not called out to be salted and it was -5F that morning and I don't think it got above 5F that day. Property manager had changed mid season. The verbal agreement was to salt intersections and hills, using xxx amount of salt. We hadn't even salted due to the temps, but even if we had of, the area in question wouldn't have been salted. Lesson learned - document the crap out of what where and when you'll salt.

We spread roughly 10 ton a night, we've been doing this awhile, there was/is no excuse for us to have been slacking in the documentation department. While we are in MI and our insurance legal people say it's hard to prove negligence when it comes to slip and falls - there is no excuse. 

If you salt, you better salt and make every attempt to make the site safe. The customer doesn't like the bill, then sign my get out of lawsuit free card and I'll stop or cut back on the salt... Document everything.


----------



## drewberryfresh (Dec 20, 2014)

SnoFarmer;1913467 said:


> yes, yes, and every state see's it different.
> 
> I wanted the case# for the painters law suite that was cited above,
> 
> ...


I just saw it like you.... ever state is different... I have looked before and there is a big difference....


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Cool

The reason I keyed in on the paint,
Is that one of my customers painted one step at the entryway 
And the stair case 49 ft away that leads to their other lots
Is not painted.

I was wondering how a hired painter that painted a step as directed by the property owner would share in the liability of a slip fall.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

gc3;1913481 said:


> Interesting stuff SnoFarmer.
> Question for all the 20 regulars that post here everyday. When it comes to slip & falls have any of you been taken to court and sued because someone fell in a lot you maintained? Did you win or lose? How many times have you been sued since you started your plowing business?


No

N/A

None


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

SnoFarmer;1913515 said:


> I was wondering how a hired painter that painted a step as directed by the property owner would share in the liability of a slip fall.


After this thead progressed and u asked for specifics, i made contact with the painter i spoke of, and asked him to elaborate on his case, which he did. Hes not a close ,personal friend, so it took a bit to get the whole story out of him. The lawsuit did happen, but he didnt lose his business soley because of it. It was a culmination of many contributing factors, including losing his insurance policy which made him give up his business. He was a factor in the insurance loss, but the owners insurance policy, along with his paid out, as everyone got sued. Negligence wasnt proved against him or the prop owner, but he did fold up the biz anyway, mostly due to his own, other, poor decision making.

So, you were correct, in a sense, and so was i. The business folded, just not why i was originallly told it had, but as a contributing factor

I stand corrected.. Thanks for making me research a bit deeper.

On the same topic, ive found some information regarding clearing snow on residential properties, here. In nj.

_Under New Jersey law, there are really two sets of standards. One applies to residential property- private single-family homes for the most part. Multiple dwellings (apartments and condominiums) and commercial properties are treated differently- more about that below. For private residences, the owner usually has no duty to either remove or warn about any risk associated with the natural accumulation of snow, ice, freezing rain and/or sleet and is usually not liable for any injuries that occur because of an accident caused by this natural accumulation. The reasoning behind this is that when you go on to a residential property, you are not there to further a commercial profit-generating business of the owner. This general rule does not especially apply if a residential owner makes the natural condition worse by what he or she does or fails to do. Also, this rule does not apply to non-owner occupied multiple dwellings (apartments, condos) or other commercial enterprise where profit is the motive.
The rules are much different when it comes to commercial enterprises (stores, apartment complexes, malls, any business). Still, the evidence must show that the property owner knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and that either an action or a failure to act by the owner created an unreasonable risk of harm. If, however, the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable because of the nature of the property owner's business or the landowner acted in a negligent manner, then no actual notice of the dangerous condition and its attendant risk of accident and injury is required. Many times if the owner of the premises had no notice of the condition or did not have a reasonable opportunity to address it, no liability will be incurred.

This general rule requiring notice is not applicable to the situation where a condition is foreseeable. For instance, if you have lived in New Jersey for even one winter you know very well that at some point after a snowfall, the snow is going to melt during the day and refreeze at night. Mostly this is not a problem. But when it happens where a commercial enterprise invites people onto their property for a a profit (think stores, malls, apartment buildings) and someone with a duty to maintain the area in a safe condition for patrons (like the owner or manager or snow plowing company) fail to do anything about ice (like having the contractor come back to treat the area with melter, or send an employee out to do the same) it's reasonable to hold that owner or that property manager or contractor responsible for an injury incurred. The refreezing of melting snow is certainly foreseeable - and the means to take care of it with ice melter or rock salt on driveways and parking lots is readily at hand and cheap. It just requires someone to actually do it. Saving money on this needed operation is always at the peril of others
_

_There are what are called *modified comparative fault rule* that determine ones exposure based upon each individual case brought forth. Under New Jersey's modified comparative fault rule, your total damages must be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of your fault. Here, that means you can receive $9,000, or $10,000 minus $1,000 that represents the 10 percent of fault assigned to you. As long as your fault is less than 50 percent, you can recover some damages from other at-fault parties. If your portion of the fault is 50 percent or more, however, your damages award drops to $0, and you will be prohibited from collecting from any other at-fault party, under New Jersey's laws._

http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com...l-accident/new-jersey-slip-fall-injury-claims

Lawsuits do occur, but in residential cases, the burden of proof of negligence is difficult, if not impossible to prove, as residential homeowners do not have the same requirements that commercial property owners have, as the premise of "generating income " dictates whether a property owner is required to notify of unsafe conditions, or even do any clearing at all. Residental prop owners can be held accountable generally dependent on local ordinances, overriding state laws. From what i read as long as residental or commercial prop owners make "reasonable attempts " at keeping properties safe, the claims made against them usually cannot be held against them personally. A review of each individual situation determining actual negligence must be made, and is reasonable care was provided, dictates whether judgment will be made against the owner or contractor, subsequently holding them responsible for the damage incurred.

http://www.franksmithlaw.com/nj-slip-fall-trip-fall/nj-snow-or-ice-slip-and-fall

So..do you need insurance ? If you never do anything that would be perceived as negligent ? It would depend if you want to pay out for your own legal defense or not. The overriding contributing factor in NJ is the sheer number of lawyers out there fishing for your case to file against a property owner, or contractor. It's this "push" of the "perception of you winning a substantial judgment" whereas the lawyer makes money off of these lawsuits, regardless of whether or not they actually win, that creates the incentive to file frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Cool,
Thanks for the fallow up.


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

SnoFarmer;1913815 said:


> Cool,
> Thanks for the fallow up.


An article which confirms what I researched...

http://www.snowbusiness-digital.com/dec2014#&pageSet=15


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Interesting.
In the land of ice and snow it is common for the avegage person to be out in such Conditions or be a prisoner of your home.

The old, if you just stayed home you wouldn't have gotten hurt
Doesn't hold up. 

A business that is open is inviting the public to come onto their property.
A higher level of care is called for, ice forming from water leaching out of your piles,
Is our responsibility.


----------



## Diesel Dan (Sep 8, 2012)

Dogplow Dodge;1886148 said:


> If you're involved in any way, most likely you would be sued. Will they win ? That question is for the courts to decide.
> 
> I know a painting contractor who was hired to paint a "yellow" curb out in front of a strip mall. The "warning paint" on the curb had worn off, and the owner of the strip mall was being responsible and hired a painting contractor to repaint the curb so idiots (and us)  wouldn't slip on it.
> 
> ...


I hate to be crude, but I would burn her damn house down. If I didn't strangle her in the court room. That's ridiculous. No wonder the cost of doing business and insurance is so high. I sub plow with a loader and my truck for an established snow company and have a contract with them stating I am simply there to move snow. Not liable for slip and falls or completion of their contracts. About all I can do is run someone over with my truck. Heck I even have them pay the loader driver so I don't deal with workers comp and unemployment. I still carry 1M of insurance.

All this crap makes it so hard to get started. I'm 22 and have a self employed dad who I run another business with that taught me the value of hard work and being your own boss. I don't see how an average kid coming out of high school could get a business running. You'd have to save up $50,000 just to start small and one accident (or ***** ambulance chasing lawyer) and it's all gone, too bad, go get a job at McDonalds. What happened to the American dream? Where the little guy could build himself a business he's proud of with hard work and planning. Everybody is out to screw you for a quick buck so they can sit on their asses and collect social security while they are at it.

/rant sorry lol


----------



## edgeair (Sep 26, 2010)

Diesel Dan;1915084 said:


> I hate to be crude, but I would burn her damn house down. If I didn't strangle her in the court room. That's ridiculous. No wonder the cost of doing business and insurance is so high. I sub plow with a loader and my truck for an established snow company and have a contract with them stating I am simply there to move snow. Not liable for slip and falls or completion of their contracts. About all I can do is run someone over with my truck. Heck I even have them pay the loader driver so I don't deal with workers comp and unemployment. I still carry 1M of insurance.
> 
> All this crap makes it so hard to get started. I'm 22 and have a self employed dad who I run another business with that taught me the value of hard work and being your own boss. I don't see how an average kid coming out of high school could get a business running. You'd have to save up $50,000 just to start small and one accident (or ***** ambulance chasing lawyer) and it's all gone, too bad, go get a job at McDonalds. What happened to the American dream? Where the little guy could build himself a business he's proud of with hard work and planning. Everybody is out to screw you for a quick buck so they can sit on their asses and collect social security while they are at it.
> 
> /rant sorry lol


Nope, you nailed it right there. Never mind trying to start a business out of high school, its hard enough sometimes to keep an established business going when you get hit from all sides by people with their hands out (mostly goberment nowadays it seems).


----------



## Dogplow Dodge (Jan 23, 2012)

Too many frivolous lawsuits resulting in excessive insurance premiums... the world we live in. I think NJ has more lawyers than doctors or indian chiefs, and it's resulted in more than the share of unnecessary lawsuits being filed like this one below.

This kid, whom was being prevented from riding the "more dangerous" rides @ the Great Adventure theme park, for "his own safety" is in a long, drawn out legal battle with the park because of some lawyer that said that he can't be discriminated against due to his "handicap".

Well, as far as I'm concerned, and what I would think most rational minds would believe, that he's not being discriminated against because of his handicap, but he's being prevented from being accidentally killed, or horribly injured when he gets ejected from a ride in which he cannot successfully secure himself into. you can't help but feel some compassion for the kid, for what he has to go through in life, but to sue a theme park because he doesn't meet the safety requirements for being on the ride ? What next ? Short people going to sue when a ride requires you to be 42" or taller to participate ? If they let disabled or people who's stature or physical being won't conform to the safety precautions designed into these rides, and they're ejected and killed, then who ultimately pays for this ? What a waste of resources for his family to engage in this type of litigation.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...d_on_six_flags_thrill_rides.html#incart_river


----------



## Diesel Dan (Sep 8, 2012)

edgeair;1915320 said:


> Nope, you nailed it right there. Never mind trying to start a business out of high school, its hard enough sometimes to keep an established business going when you get hit from all sides by people with their hands out (mostly goberment nowadays it seems).


Boom %6 corporate tax in Michigan now.


----------



## sectlandscaping (Sep 7, 2009)

Had a slip and fall 3 days after I plowed. The contract stated we monitor for 24 hours following a storm. After that we must be called for additional treatment and or notified of icy conditions. We werent notified. The contract stated all injuries would be reported immediately. We heard from them 9 months later. I gave all my records to my insurer and never heard back. That was over 2 years ago. 

This year when I went to get quotes. All the rates were through the roof and some said no. I ended up staying with the same company I had the claim with. They didnt jack rates up, so I'm thinking they never paid out. 

I would tell people to be real specific on whats covered in their contracts.


----------

