Politician Trespasses Into House Under Construction, Breaks Leg... Sues Owners
from the crazy-lawsuit-of-the-day dept
Chris J. contributes the latest in our series of absolutely ridiculous lawsuits. Apparently NY State Senator Jim Alesi is suing a couple and their homebuilder over a broken leg he suffered. But the real story is in how he broke the leg. The couple -- who it should be mentioned are constituents of Alesi -- were having a home built. While it was under construction, but no one was there, Alesi suddenly decided to just go into the house and have a look (he says he was checking it out "for a friend.") The door was locked, but he walked around back and found a basement door that was unlocked. Once inside, he tried to climb a ladder to get to the first floor, since no stairs had been built yet... and suffered serious leg injuries, requiring surgery. And now, he's suing the homeowners and the builder.Yes, let's repeat that. This guy trespassed, broke into someone's home (that was under construction at the time), and then broke his leg while trying to climb a ladder, and then decides to sue about it. And he's a State Senator. This was not a house that was for sale. It was not open to the public in any way. Alesi was apparently cited for trespassing at the time, and everyone involved is apparently baffled that he's suddenly suing now, for something that happened a few years ago, and on something in which it appears that he was massively at fault.
Update: Via the comments we have the full complaint and the news that he's dropped the lawsuit and issued a typical politician's apology, after members of his own party started ridiculing the lawsuit and asking him to drop it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jim alesi, lawsuits, trespassing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More was damaged
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Double Standards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
Also, the Senator should be immediately removed from office for severe lack of intelligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Alesi isn't just a shitty senator, he is a shitty human being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surprise anyone considers this serious
Bazinga
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What a dill-hole!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, and his dropping the suit and then his non-apology.
But of course, it only happened after he got so much negative publicity about it.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/01/senator_jim_alesi_moron_of_the.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It will happened again. Just funnier when it's a Senator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I mean really - suing?!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He didn't really think this one through, apparently...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I Have a Feeling . . .
It remains to be seen whether or not the party can game the political process enough to keep him in office over the will of the people, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
At least that's the reasoning I think a good lawyer would use, and then file a motion for attorneys fees after he/she won the defense. So even if it would have gone to court the chance of his winning were very slim: with or without a jury trial.
There are things property owners can be held negligent for outside the house for innocent tresspass(kids getting a ball, and hurting themselves on exposed, rusted metal.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kookoo Kuci
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big 3 Lawyer ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Kookoo Kuci
"Law is a diease.... meat[sic] the cure"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think this SHOULD go to a Supreme Court hearing by default, simply because he's a Senator. His position alone should require a hearing and more importantly; his sentence should carry the weight of a Supreme Court ruling.
There must be more to the story, such as the senator was investigating some alleged wrongdoing by the builder, or perhaps he was attempting to manipulate the homeowners in some way.
The lesson here should be, don't do anyone any favors. Press charges, no matter whom they are, because even those we elect to positions within our government may come back to get you and punish you for your kindness and/or forgiveness.
I hope this man rots in prison and we get to see him get it handed back to him on the next season of Lockdown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(/thread hijacking off)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Flood him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UK...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Is my believe that what destroyed American values was this mindset of not caring about others, the consequences are obvious. The senator is a jackass and should be punished in some way and I'm sure he will find himself in trouble more because this kind of people are like problem magnets and will suffer, but that doesn't mean we should not care about others.
Because there are bad people on the world it doesn't mean we must become like them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moron
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For example if a person breaks a windows to break into your home and cuts themselves on the broken glass then it is there fault. Now if you put broken glass on the floor and in the flower beds outside your windows and they get hurt it is your fault - your place was not safe. Yep gotta keep your place safe in case someone breaks in.
I am sure Jim Alesi will argue that the site was not safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Double Standards
It seems he waited until the statute of limitations expired on the criminal charges before filing this civil suit.
How delightful scummy of him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That he filed this at all and moreover waited until the criminal charge expired to do so is news worth repeating as often as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Double Standards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Kookoo Kuci
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You haven't factored in the insurance company's role
The other parties involved here are the insurance companies for the builder and the owners. In practice, it is the insurance companies who decide how far this goes, and they are likely to want an out of court settlement on the outside chance that they could get hit by a large settlement. So the process will be that they first settle on the amount of damage that would be due if the builder and homeowner were in fact liable. Let's say they decide that it is $250,000. Then they will sit down and figure out what percentage is the fault of the plaintiff. This percentage will be a maximum of 90%. Since the door was unlocked, it could be lower. So, in the worse case scenario the plaintiff walks away with $25,000 minus 40% for attorney fees. It's a sweet deal for the plaintiff and an even sweeter deal for the attorney who does not have to suffer through a broken leg. It also explains why we have so many of these types of lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Double Standards
Are you frickin' serious??? That's not just scummy, that's scummalicous!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
15. That prior to and around the time of the incident which caused the injuries herein, the Trolley Brook Estates Subdivision was advertised as a new housing development that was open to the public.
It seems to me this must have been made up if he was charged with trespass. I was wondering "where is the paragraph citing that he was legally on the premises."
The lawyer and Alesi are lucky this wasn't filed in Federal Court, where some attorneys were recently fined $4500 for filing an "idiotic" and baseless motion; the judge was the one who called it "idiotic."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big 3 Lawyer ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Flood him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
For example, my neighborhood is open to the public, since we don't have walls, gates, or guards, but my house is not open to the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
15. That prior to and around the time of the incident which caused the injuries herein, the Trolley Brook Estates Subdivision was advertised as a new housing development that was open to the public.
He was apparently planning to argue that he wasn't trespassing because the advertisement made him an invitee. An invitee is a person who enters another's property by express or implied invitation for the purpose for which the land is held open to the public. He would have to show that the ad invited people to the development to inspect the homes that were being built. If he is an invitee, the land owner owes him a duty of due care to warn him of any dangers or to make the conditions safe if a warning would not suffice. If he's an invitee, he has a good case.
Now, if he's not an invitee, he's a trespasser. The land owner has no duty of reasonable care to a trespasser who is not known to the land owner, nor is there any duty on the land owner to discover any trespassers. If he's a trespasser, he has no case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Kookoo Kuci
Though the linked article from CNE seems not so much about dentisty as about gustatory stupidity anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UK Trespass Laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12137756
There was this guy in his 50s/60s, he owned two houses. He was busy renovating one, so it was then unoccupied. An Eastern European man, I think he was Latvian, got together a bunch of like minded individuals, illegal immigrants the lot, and they basically squatted in the house. The paper had photos of the house being torn apart, it was a mess. They used the man's internet access for free, held parties at all hours.
"He acknowledged that the group had put up posters in the area saying anybody trying to enter the house would be prosecuted.
"If we enter this property then it's in our possession, so the owner has to go to court to get us out unless he lives here.""
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The duty for safety, as I'm sure you know, falls under the "prudent person" arena. The argument would be made over whether the actions taken by the owner were those which would be required of a prudent person to secure the property. I'd say that locking 2/3rds of the doors would be a great step in that direction. Hopefully, if it gets to trial, the judge would say that a prudent person would realize that a house 'open to the public' would not have required a visitor to enter through the basement and climb a ladder.
Based on what I know of the case, I don't know that I would have been so quick to hit him with trespassing unless he really was there to do something other than look at what he thought was an open house... but on the same token, I wouldn't hold the owners or builder liable for negligence.
We have to protect people from reasonable harm, but we don't have to be responsible for their stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
This would happen even if the case were dropped by either party. It could be rectified in negotiations behind the scenes, but officially, the court would render a judgment for the winner to the tune of the lower legal bills.
This would completely stop the extortion lawsuit campaigns, because if they did take someone to court and drop it, it would eat up all the profits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All levels of Govt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish I were the insurance adjuster on that claim... I'd love the laugh :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Big 3 Lawyer ?
You Honor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is just one of the many things wrong with the courts
Also, people would start representing themselves for fear of losing and having to pay double what their legal fees would be without that stipulation. We'd have Judge Judy style cases in the Supreme Courts!
I don't think that this solution would completely stop anything. If anything, I think that this would increase the effectiveness that those extortion law suits have. In your model, the loser has to pay the lower of the two legal fees to the winner. The winner stands to get the judgment and a portion of their own legal fees back while the loser again has to pay all three sums. I'd sure as hell never want to defend myself against a lawyer who may in fact be able to convince a judge that I might be in the wrong.
It might be more fair to add to your model, the losing attorneys must pay their retainer and fees to the winning attorneys so that the loser is only out the legal fees and the judgement. THAT might have a more desired effect; that the lawyers won't take a case they think they might lose, and they will be more inclined to work harder to win because they are competing for business (revenue).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Big 3 Lawyer ?
I would like to think it would be impossible to see someone on the bench who was straight out of law school and graduated last in their class, but dumber things have happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UK Trespass Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is waived if the gun is required for your work - farmers tend to have shotguns for vermin control but there are land managers who need to cull deer who will have rifles.
If you want to target shoot handguns and rifles for sport i believe (citation needed) that these need to be kept at your gun club.
ALL gun ownership is strictly controlled and ownership of a gun means that your name is logged with the Chief of Police for your county/district. Gun ownership for personal protection is not allowed.
On a lighter note: try this story of a farmer who went out in his wheelchair to shoot at a fox and managed to hit two guys illicitly growing marijuana on his farm. You couldn't make it up but i am sorry to say he has now had his licence revoked. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339465/Farmer-shooting-fox-hits-intruders-trespassing-steal -secret-cannabis-factory.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's hoping
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Handguns other than antiques and air weapons are banned. You can keep a weapon at home but there are strenuous storage requirements - steel bolted down securely locked cabinet with weapon locked in place inside, amunition kept seperately or something similar I think - which is audited before the certificate is granted, and there are rules governing the transport of weapons too.
This seems a good summary
[ link to this | view in thread ]