From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 18:04:23 MDT
"natashavita@earthlink.net" wrote:
>
> Well, the people getting tipsy on the aromatic fumes might want to hang the pourer, but the sink will be cleaner for it -:)
>
> Although not similar, this reminds me of a lawsuit I heard on the news this morning. A woman had trimmed a few an Oak tree branches. Later she was fined $23,000 some dollars for breaking the law. When she bought her house, she did not know that the O
ak tree was a valued historical tree and the fine for altering it in any way is prosecutable. To her, the crime was negligible or trifling, although she certainly understands the value of this Oak tree. Her defense is because she lacked knowledge, and w
hen she should or could have been given knowledge, she was not due to the irresponsibility of other with whom she conducted business. Therefore, the onus falls on the parties who neglected to convey important information to her about her property (if it
was their responsibility to do so).
>
> Who’s to blame?
Ignorance is no excuse, but it is a mitigating factor. I learned this
fact when I was cited for driving a speedboat on Lake Washington while
my business partner was waterskiing behind, without a spotter. It was
his boat, and I had never done any waterskiing before, so I didn't know
what the law was, requiring a third person be present to keep an eye on
the skier. When I went to court I told the story and said to the judge
that I understand that ignorance is no excuse, and he interjected "But
it is a mitigating factor!" and he let me off pleading innocent if I
agreed to pay court costs.
With your story, any historical restrictions on her property should have
been included as covenants or easements in the deed, which she was made
aware of (or her lawyer was) when the purchase of the home was closed.
She could claim, if she was not present at closing, that her lawyer did
not inform her of the presence of such restrictions, and thus sue the
lawyer for malpractice for the costs of any damages she incurred from
the cutting episode. The lawyer would have to prove that she was
informed. If he could prove this, and she had already claimed in court
in the cutting case that she haddn't, she could also be prosecuted for
perjury, obviously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:58 MST