Injured at Mi Central

[313WX]

IANAL but I think Matty may still have had a Duty of Care. Of course, it would depend on Michigan Law. Apparently under UK Common Law he definitely would be liable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of...usually_exists

I'm not exactly sure how Michigan's Duty of Care LAws works [[it's similar to California's Multi-Factor Test, but with a few modifications), however, as a general rule, as long as the owner has a sign alerting trespassers of how dangerous the property is [[MAtty Moroun has placed several of these signs around the property), the property owner has no duty to them.

One thing's for sure however, the property owner doesn't have any STRICT liability if the trespasser is an adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespasser

[Scottathew]

As much as I hate Matty, the kids are at fault. They were trespassing and should assume all liability for their actions.

However, this just proves that redoing a few windows was just lipstick on a pig. This building is falling apart and Matty has no real intentions to do anything about it.

[mauser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attract...sance_doctrine

In the law of torts, the attractive nuisance doctrine states that landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

[Gannon]

MauSER! Good to see ya...

[313WX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attract...sance_doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attract...sance_doctrine

1. The person trespassing legally isn't a child.

2. That only applies in 7 US States, and Michigan isn't one of them.

[Downriviera]

I wish Evil Knievel was still around. I would have liked to see him launch himself off Maroun's bridge to nowhere on a jet powered motorbike and land in Canada.

[Meddle]

I'd like to see a Judge order Fatty to live here until both it and the bridge are completed.

[Zacha341]

---- I'd pay to see that! Woo-hoo!

I wish Evil Knievel was still around. I would have liked to see him launch himself off Maroun's bridge to nowhere on a jet powered motorbike and land in Canada.

[mcsdetroitfriend]

As much as I hate Matty, the kids are at fault. They were trespassing and should assume all liability for their actions.

However, this just proves that redoing a few windows was just lipstick on a pig. This building is falling apart and Matty has no real intentions to do anything about it.

The building is fine, there's no hole in the ground. If its the window the media has been showing, then there is a pipe tunnel that is accessed by a shaft. Only spot I've ever seen a weak floor is over the ticket office. The floor in the station masters office, where the master clock was controlled is so paper thin, very scary

[majohnson]

From a legal perspective, Matty had no duty to the trespasser besides not being wanton, as Matty did not know T would be on the property. Matty even tried to prevent T from entering with warning signs and a patrolman.Matty is entitled to nominal monetary damages without proof of harm and may pursue monetary relief for actual damages such as the additional costs of responding to the issue.I personally would like to the the trespasser liable for the public service rescue, not only was the rescue caused by his illegal activity, but T put the rescuerers in danger without the excuse of an underlying lawful reason. At least a careless adult who hurts himself on a bike ramp is engaged in a lawful activity, the trespasser was not.Trespassers like him cause insurance rates to go up, causing the break even point on investments to rise, and change the business calculus of doing business in Detroit.In addition to all the issues Detroit has, assholes like that trespasser create a lawless culture in Detroit that defeats business investments and substantiate the myth of Detroit as a place where economic investment is futile.Those public rescuerers have families, they suffer injuries in their line of work. Hurt backs, twisted ankles and the like that have just that much less time to heal because of jerks like him who want rescue for no good reason. So when some old woman falls in her home and the EMS takes an hour, you know who to blame.I wish I was a judge so that I could drop the hammer.Delinquent, in every sense of the word.

[Gistok]

Thanks for the details majohnson... you just gave the reason why I can't give DYES''ers a private tour of the closed off [[no railings) surviving areas of the former Michigan Theatre. The building owner wouldn't mind... but his insurance company said NO WAY.

[mauser]

3. Read the actual law

Under Michigan’s attractive nuisance doctrine,6
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children
trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if
[[a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows
or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
[[b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and
which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or
serious bodily harm to such children, and
[[c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize
the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made
dangerous by it, and
[[d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of
eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved,
and
[[e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or
otherwise protect the children.” [Taylor v Mathews, 40 Mich App 74, 81; 198
NW2d 843 [[1972), quoting 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 339, p 197.]
A party may not be liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine unless the injured party
establishes each of the five elements of § 339.7 See Rand v Knapp Shoe Stores, 178 Mich App
735, 741; 444 NW2d 156 [[1989); Murday v Bales Trucking, Inc, 165 Mich App 747, 752; 419
NW2d 451 [[1988).
Under Restatement, 2d, § 339[[c), a premises possessor will not be liable for injuries
caused by an artificial condition upon the land to trespassing children unless, “the children
because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling
with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it.” A premises possessor is not required
“to keep his land free from conditions which even young children are likely to observe and the
full extent of the risk involved in which they are likely to realize.” Id., comment m, p 204.
The purpose of the duty is to protect children from dangers which they do not
appreciate and not to protect them against harm resulting from their own
immature recklessness in the case of a known and appreciated danger. Therefore,
even though the condition is one which the possessor should realize to be such
that young children are unlikely to realize the full extent of the danger of
meddling with it or encountering it, the possessor is not subject to liability to a
child who in fact discovers the condition and appreciates the full risk involved,
but none the less chooses to encounter it out of recklessness or bravado. [Id.]
Section 339[[c) looks to the child in question to determine whether he or she actually realized or
should have realized the danger posed by the artificial condition. Further, there is no “fixed age
at which a child does and can be expected to realize any particular risk, as a matter of law.”
Taylor, supra at 92. Instead, each case must be judged on its own merits. Id. Finally, “unless
the judge can say from the undisputed evidentiary facts that all reasonable men would agree that
the [child] . . . did or could have been expected to realize the risk involved, . . . the issue must be
submitted to a jury.” Id. at 92 n3.

[mauser]

The young man's father will surely file a lawsuit against the owner, and there will be a case.

[mauser]

More footnotes for the above cited law and precedent:

Symanzik, 263 Mich App 324, 335; 687 NW2d 881 [[2004) [[noting that the Restatement
recognizes that “child invitees are entitled to greater protection because of their ‘inability to
understand or appreciate the danger, or to protect [themselves] against it.’”).
6 While it is still often referred to as the “attractive nuisance doctrine,” the doctrine does not
actually require that the condition attract the presence of the children. See Pippin v Atallah, 245
Mich App 136, 146 n 3; 626 NW2d 911 [[2001); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 339, comment e, p
200.

[downtown_racine]

You can get some really powerful flashlights for very little nowemdays. Dumbass

[Richard]

He is 20 so responsible for his own actions.

[wolverine]

Wrong.

I don't particularly care for MAtty Moroun either. However, from a purely legal perspective, this person was trespassing on private property. So after he eats up his medical expenses, Matty Moroun can then press legal charges on him.

That will never happen. Why would he waste the time? It's a misdemeanor with a fine probably less than most city parking tickets. Even if he tried to prove a point, he wouldn't get much sympathy and I doubt it would stop the explorers.

Obviously the police did not charge them with breaking and entering and vandalism. Crimes that I believe should carry serious fines. So with the exception of the fall, nothing to see here or care much about.

[313WX]

That will never happen. Why would he waste the time? It's a misdemeanor with a fine probably less than most city parking tickets. Even if he tried to prove a point, he wouldn't get much sympathy and I doubt it would stop the explorers.

Obviously the police did not charge them with breaking and entering and vandalism. Crimes that I believe should carry serious fines. So with the exception of the fall, nothing to see here or care much about.

See my post after that one.

[Occurrence]

The young man's father will surely file a lawsuit against the owner, and there will be a case.

I hope not. I thought I heard the guy was like 20. If he is and he's still having his parents fight his battles, we are doomed as a society.

[FlyingJ]

so when do THESE guys show up? http://www.theatlanticcities.com/art...n-church/1760/

[townonenorth]

More footnotes for the above cited law and precedent:

Symanzik, 263 Mich App 324, 335; 687 NW2d 881 [[2004) [[noting that the Restatement
recognizes that “child invitees are entitled to greater protection because of their ‘inability to
understand or appreciate the danger, or to protect [themselves] against it.’”).
6 While it is still often referred to as the “attractive nuisance doctrine,” the doctrine does not
actually require that the condition attract the presence of the children. See Pippin v Atallah, 245
Mich App 136, 146 n 3; 626 NW2d 911 [[2001); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 339, comment e, p
200.

He's not a child. Oh wait...

[KJ5]

Give Matty a ticket for having a dangerous, tresspassable building. The kid who fell through the floor got a ticket so give Matty a ticket, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Plus they need the money.

[wolverine]

See my post after that one.

Yes, I read all of them. My post still applies. You do a lot of explaining for nothing. This incident is probably water under the bridge for Matty. [[no pun intended)